next »

[michaelplzno]

Since this forum doesn't have a writing section, I'm posting this here.

I've heard gamasutra, now gamedeveloper.com post rafts of articles about how juvenile and bad power fantasies are. They are for children, people with weak minds, schlock to be written by people with no artistic talent, or so they say.

But power has been an important theme in art since humans have been drawing pictures of the hunt on cave walls, however many minutes ago that was. Some would say that the best works of fiction have power as important themes in them. I can't imagine "The Godfather" without any discussion of power, or a plethora of other art that is considered to truly be THE BEST(TM).

So, once you get past the awkward "ewww power is for kids' stuff, not real art" angsty phase of writing, what makes a good power fantasy? For example, a first person shooter where you have a gun that simply kills all bad guys within 1000KM would be extremely boring, and no one would play, though that does give the main player a lot of power.

I'm going to focus on some TV shows to get into the themes *SPOILERS*:

In Loki Season two, Loki is learning to control his time travel powers, and they have a discussion that spawned this article. When analyzing power, you want to know the fundamental questions Who, What, Why, When, and How. If any one of these questions is unanswered then your show/game/art is bad in an objective sense.

In Loki, the question was the simple realization that Loki wanted power in the hands of his friends, so the plot of Loki focused on the "who" question. Loki's vision for power was to get the right people to become powerful, thus seeding the TVA with his own handpicked friends, and ditching the bad ones he did not like. The show focuses on developing fondness for the characters, so you want them ruling over you. The weakness of the show is the "How" factor: Loki just walks up a magic staircase to ascend to the glorious golden throne without any real explanation of how he is organizing anything.

In Rick and Morty, Rick obsesses over the injustice of "Rick Prime" murdering his wife and takes on this godlike figure to get revenge. It is quite a spectacle, and full of high-minded logic and detail, an impressive bit of narrative. However, this example ignores the "Why" question. Why does Rick Prime want to kill Rick's wife? It's never explained. Furthermore, why does Evil Morty want to live in some space mansion in the middle of a nowhere void full of chaos and death? It falls apart very quickly. The show does a wonderful job with "Who" establishing the characters involved. But without "why" the fantasy is not satisfying.

In One Piece, we have Luffy on his quest to be king of the pirates. However, since Luffy is more like the king of stretching out a narrative forever, the question becomes "When" will Luffy beat the bad guy we all know he is going to beat. The pacing is wrong, so the fantasy is ruined. I can't feel like Luffy will ever win because I know there will be some more episodes packed in there.

Sometimes the "What" isn't satisfying. In Game of Thrones, a show I mostly refuse to watch, I'm not sure what kind of administration anyone would ruling that world of backstabbers and scheming ... jerks would even do. Usually, people who seek power have some kind of platform they are running on: end slavery, end pain and suffering, be free, etc. I never got into Game of Thrones enough, but it seems like everyone just wants to be king because they like the big chair? What will the GoT leader do with their power? I never knew.

(I may refine this more, its dinner time for me!)

[flowerthief]

Sometimes the "What" isn't satisfying. In Game of Thrones, a show I mostly refuse to watch, I'm not sure what kind of administration anyone would ruling that world of backstabbers and scheming ... jerks would even do. Usually, people who seek power have some kind of platform they are running on: end slavery, end pain and suffering, be free, etc. I never got into Game of Thrones enough, but it seems like everyone just wants to be king because they like the big chair? What will the GoT leader do with their power? I never knew.

There is in fact a very major character in GoT who is seeking power to, at least in part, end slavery and the other brutal customs of the cultures she conquers. But in trying to oppose brutality she becomes brutal herself--a fascinating take on power imo. (not handled particularly well in the show's final seasons, but we can presume the books if they are ever completed would do this character arc more justice)

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" might not be a new idea but I think GoT illustrates the danger of unchecked power wonderfully.

[michaelplzno]

I guess I couldn't get past how nasty the GoT characters were, a "who" problem. Though I'm told I look like Jon Snow.

Some people need to be powerful or else it is impossible to govern, so there must be some system by which power is doled out to worthy recipients. I know power "corrupts" so are we going to relegate power to a bunch of corrupt people? We're not even going to try to give power to someone who deserves it for once? Sometimes the power corrupts crowd makes me think they WANT power to corrupt because then it means that no one should have any power which is a nonsensical nonfunctional system.

[Schoq]

are those articles still written because I definitely feel like that's more of a 2008 "art games" movement thing that very few really took seriously in the first place.
Either way there's no one size fits all. Someone with dreams about being a sports star will be enticed by different kinds of power fantasies than someone who never got over being bullied in middle school.
If you're really interested there's a guy who wrote a bunch about the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

[michaelplzno]

I don't know what people took seriously, never me though.

[Guert]

Interesting topic. Not gonna post a long wall of text but I like to boil it down to 2 factors

• How stories resonate with the audience
• How the emotions are layered to create a paradox

In essence, humans are profoundly attracted by a few types of stories, reflecting how society has evolved. The best known theory around this is the 7 types of storytelling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots).

An average story usualy stops at the first layer of emotions making them feel shallow, and yes, many games fall in that trap. "Kill the bad guy because he is bad".

A good story usualy creates enough emotional layers to create at least one paradox, which leaves the audience wondering what the character will do next and, in the process, theorize about how they would act in that situation. A good example of this, in games, are the Assassins Creed storyline: the player must kill to prevent evil. Over time, the story got more layered and captivated the audience. You can feel more nuance in the power fantasy as you examine the later entries of the series. Personaly, I am not a fan of this brand, but millions of players disagree with me. 

Anyway, that's my two cents.  

[michaelplzno]

I agree @Guert, it's part of why Superman isn't as easy to write anymore. He's typically uncompromisingly good and he just pulls some power out of his butt to solve every problem. If there isn't any real issue the narrative is dissecting it becomes a bit less impactful. Oh, that guy robbed a bank, and the powerful guy punched him and threw him in jail... boring.

The resolution of the paradox is satisfying to the audience for sure. I'd like to see a fifth matrix movie where neo and trinity are truly in charge of the matrix in a meaningful way. Will they paint the sky with rainbows? But what do they do about a lot of the issues that humanity faces in the simulation? Some of them are layups to solve. For example, it would be trivial to give people good health... right? But what about people who abuse the privilege, or use it to torture their rivals who then instantly heal? Also, what about the machines who want humans to use their brainpower for their sinister purposes? That, to me, would be a lot of fun to flesh out. A light comical "office space" meets "matrix" where the good guys are working to make the world better for once.

In terms of the basic plots, I'm not saying that is wrong but really the plotline isn't as interesting as the premise. If there are 7 types of roads, I'm more interested in the car that drives down it.

[michaelplzno]

This is a splendid example of the "HOW" question:





Flash is trying to save a litter of babies (Who) from a collapsing hospital. We know flash is going to do it (What) we know he is going to do the right thing and save the babies because its good (Why) We know the timeline is a few seconds (When)

The question that makes the sequence interesting is the "how" it all plays out, with some great spectacle and comedy as the bodies fly chaotically in slow motion.

I'll add @Ghuert's paradox in there: if there isn't an interesting answer to any of the questions it becomes boing.

For example, if Gazoo was in the same situation (The green all-powerful goblin from The Flintstones) he would simply snap his fingers and the entire building would be fixed. This would not make for a satisfying power fantasy unless Gazoo tries to make a play on "WHY should he help?" One idea could be a pedantic argument that plays out, as the babies are falling, about noninterference in the timelines every disagreement getting the babies closer to doom.

So, you must have both a good question and answer to make for satisfying power fantasies.

[michaelplzno]

More captivating than simply being powerful is the fantasy that we have answers to difficult questions.

[michaelplzno]

So, I'm watching more Rick and Morty, where Rick can essentially do whatever he wants. The more I see it, the more I wonder why Rick is such a waste of a soul.

Rick has, for example, a device which lets people grow back limbs. I'm not saying it would be a good episode of the show, but it's also upsetting that he never even thought to put the schematics online so people could manufacture such a device.

Sadly, this seems to be the case for most powerful people: You have Bezos who decides with his billions to go into space and gives this tone-deaf speech about how all his employees who can't take bathroom breaks are responsible for his space voyage. If he dropped the space program and gave all his employees extra pay, he would probably be doing more good than just a space program.

You have Mark Zuckerburg who has access to billions of people on his network and can't even figure out how to get them to talk about meaningful things. He'd rather invest in his toy metaverse that no one wants or enjoys.

You have Elon Musk, who cannot for the life of him make twitter anything more than a cesspool, and sells cars for men with micro-penises.

I know there is this idea that "power corrupts" but that's not quite so true: only someone who is so desperate for power that they are blinded by it can become powerful in this world. Power is not for people who see clearly and know the truth and generally have a good head on their shoulders. It's for people who see being powerful as so important that nothing else matters to get it. And those people have no idea what to do with their power. To them, power is not something you use to achieve a goal, it is something to have that makes your life matter.

I'm not saying Rick should give everyone their limbs back to be liked, or because it would be a good episode of the show or anything like that. I'm saying that only a ghoulish disgusting creature would have the ability to heal the sick and just not be bothered to do it.

I think of another power fantasy: "Bruce Almighty" and at one point Bruce is overwhelmed with prayers from his people who want all kinds of things. Bruce sits down for 10 minutes to sift through the prayers and decides that dealing with this is too time consuming and he has more important things to take care of like giving his wife bigger boobs. Is that corruption? The truth is not that power corrupts, power blinds. When people become comfortable with their power, they start to not care about the things that average people care about. Suddenly, having a fancy meal, or exotic vacation becomes more important than using that power for anything meaningful.

Even in Bruce Almighty, when Bruce is a changed man and prays for "World Peace" God himself says that is "Miss America" stuff, not real prayer. It's astonishing how little vision the powerful have for the potential happiness of the world.

To me, the reason to be powerful is to heal a broken world. Apparently, no one who thinks that way has ever become powerful.

[michaelplzno]

Apparently making beetles is a really good use of power?

[dra brewaril]

As you noticed in the first post, if you can fix all mistakes with a snap of your fingers, you probably won't find it interesting to follow the plot's development, as there won't be a plot itself. Similarly, omniscience: instantly appearing answers to questions lose all meaning and become very boring. If any creature has such an ability, it would be the most boring creature.

And influential people in the world, I think, undergo significant changes in their worldview as they "level up" their influence. Moreover, who decides which problems are the most global and which ones should be solved? You, for example, may think it's diseases, I may think it's hunger, and Musk may think humanity needs to enter a symbiosis with AI and become cyborgs. And who among us will be right?  

[Hi I was a spammer who thought they could sneakily insert a hidden link into a long block quote without being detected. Shame on me.]

[michaelplzno]

I understand that there is quite a power struggle IRL.

Musk seems to want to be liked for posting hateful stuff about Jews and pandering to the right wing. I wouldn't play it that way, but I guess once he spent however many billion on twitter, he feels that his own personal self-expression is much more important than posting meaningful stuff that might matter to everyone and trying to elevate discussions to talk about better and more thoughtful ideas.

As in my post about beetles: Musk seems obsessed with whatever his little AI things are and is missing that twitter is a place for posting garbage and he won't take out the trash.

I'm warry of Musk's desire to make people cyborgs when he can't even get twitter to work correctly. I wonder if *maybe* his cyborg implants might be functionally a bit wonky too.