Posi Blogs about con to the ret

I think what Positron fails to realize is that even though we as players are free to have "creative license to introduce our own background into the CoH world" he, as the Lead Designer of a well established game, essentially does NOT have the same degree of freedom to retcon the game world canon on a whim.

Now to be clear as the Lead Designer of the game Posi does in fact literally have the ability to retcon anything he wants. But what I meant when I said that he doesn't have that "freedom" is that as the caretaker of this long established game world he has the final responsibility to maintain a level of continuity that we, the players, can rely on. Like the game master of any RPG Posi wields the ultimate power in the game but as any GOOD game master knows that power must be tempered by consistency, common sense and the willingness to compromise in order to preserve the general well-being of the system. By analogy we know the President of the United States keeps a proverbial finger on the nuclear launch button, but we expect that button to be pressed only in a dire emergency, not as plan A.

Basically Posi's vaguely whimsical attitude about retcons demonstrates a relatively inexperienced line of thinking on his part. Sure he's been associated with this game for years, but that doesn't automatically make him the world's greatest GM. I'm glad he doesn't think he needs to be strictly locked into the past, but by the same token his open disregard for continuity is a classic rookie mistake in the making.

While some retconning might be inevitable, it should always be kept to an absolute minimum.
It should not be embraced as the scalpel of first resort but as the guillotine of last resort.

TREMENDOUS post. I loled heartily

I agree with this statement. The blog post seems to refer to unpublished material contained in the "story bible" and other design documents. The only example of this to which players have ever been made privy is a piece of the original background on the Minions of Igneous, in which "Igneous" is a mad scientist who discovers the underground creatures. This has never appeared in-game, so, under Mr. Miller's* view, it's fair game to be written out of existence. That's fine with me, but in my mind, that isn't what geekdom refers to as a "retcon." It was never part of public continuity in the first place. I'd refer to this as a zero-case contradiction: one where the only changes occur entirely in nonpublic material.

The problem with zero-case contradiction retcons in a medium like an MMO is that the next writer to work on the material may not realize that Dr. Igneous has now never existed and go on to write a story about him, making the published material confusing and possibly self-contradictory. This is why it's critical not only to track your lore in design documents but also to make notes of any changes you might make to it.

The player base seems more concerned about the other two types of story contradictions, the single-case and the double-case. In a single-case contradiction, new material is created that overwrites existing player perception but does not directly contradict anything previously published in the material. An example of this would be the revelation that there is no Praetorian equivalent of Lord Recluse. For years, players gone on and on about this hypothetical character, even to the point of assuming one existed. Then, when Going Rogue was released, it was revealed that he'd never existed to begin with. If you played a character who worked for or even was Praetorian Recluse, this wrote your backstory out of existence. A single-case contradiction differs from a zero-case one in that in the single case, the devs do not go to any particular effort to correct or change the player perception, and they may even encourage it informally. Other examples here include the appearance of Primal Earth Odysseus, how involved the Warriors are with classical culture, whether the Freakshow are funny or serious, the existence of Avilians as a species and the Blood of the Black Stream as a faction, and how much and in what manner Rikti communicate their dialogue. (I deliberately chose what I consider low-controversy examples to make things clear here, but I'm convinced that most of what the players consider double-case contradictions are really single-case ones; i.e., they exist only because of players' own assumptions.)

Then we come to the double-case contradiction. This is what's being discussed in this thread, as opposed to the zero-case that seems to be the focus of the blog post. This is what geek culture calls a "retcon." In a double-case contradiction, new, published material directly contradicts older, published material. For instance, a character might be dead in one version and alive in another. The problem with double-case contradictions, aside from the contradictions themselves, is that they lead the audience to believe every single-case contradiction is also a double-case one, because "If the devs are so disrespectful of the continuity as to retcon one thing, then they obviously don't respect any of the continuity at all! How dare they wipe out the backstory of my Avilian catgirl!"

I should also note that all this discussion ought to be academic. It's possible to turn any double-case contradiction into a single-case one with a bit of work, though it can be a clumsy process. An example of such a "save" in CoH would be resolving the confusion over Ms. Liberty's given name by using both of them. More importantly for the discussion I think Mr. Miller intended to spark (rather than the one he got), the writer is careful, he can make any contradictions zero-case, meaning players will never see them at all.

***

We should also keep in mind that story always appears to have been a secondary concern for Mr. Miller. He's primarily a games person, not as much a story person. This is a split in gameplay culture that has existed since long before the computer game, back to the earliest days of pen and paper RPG's. Some people play for the background or in order to play a role, while others do so in order to experience the feeling of "beating" the game through application of the rules. Mr. Miller's prior statements indicate that he's firmly in the latter camp. While I have fairly strong feelings on which side should dominate, I recognize that not everyone agrees with me. I do feel that this is something that gaming culture as well as game design culture needs to settle over the next couple of decades or so, though, since it runs to very fundamental ideas of what a "game" is, not to mention whether and how it is "art."

* I try to refer to the developers by their real names in these kinds of discussions. I've always found the CoH practice of giving developers the names of in-game characters confusing. It also leads to things like the player base's dislike of the character Statesman, which seems driven primarily by their dislike of the developer who used that character's name, not the character himself.

If your writers are truly creative they will find a way to tell this story while working within the existing canon. It'll make for a more cohesive game world in the end.

I firmly believe that both sides can co-exist. Neither side needs to dominate. In fact, they must coexist in a game like this, with a large chunk of the playerbase that puts so much emphasis on character, a large chunk that's content to roll up whatever the FotM is and farm AE until their eyes bleed, and an even bigger chunk that falls somewhere in between.

At the risk of getting in SERIOUS trouble for this as a response, but purely for comedy effect...

/jranger

Edit: to expand on this, that's exactly what I read it as meaning, though Posi does imply that he wouldn't necessarily object to some published "history" to be retconned in favour of a ripping yarn. He'd ask for it to be avoided if at all possible, but not at all costs.

The cottage rule doesn't say things can never change. It only says such changes should only be taken on as a last resort, and only to implement changes that are important enough to game balance. To fix things that are essentially broken, in other words.

I think canon can be respected in the same way: you don't change canon just because you think it will be cool to change canon. You change canon when you have to fix something that turns out to be broken, and that's the last resort to fixing it.

Say you have painted yourself into a corner with the established story line. Two very long established storylines now reveal themselves to be contradictory in some unexpected fashion. Lets say it was long established that Blue Steel learned his fighting skills as a teenager in his neighborhood streets of Kings Row, but then you discover in another long established storyline that the Rikti blew that neighborhood up at that specific time.

Before you retcon Blue Steel into being an alien being from the planet of ultimate fighting, you're supposed to consider:

1. Maintaining canon and expanding it to be consistent. Blue Steel grew up as a street urchin in that bombed out neighborhood, and there's no contradiction.

2. When that fails, tweak canon the minimum amount to be consistent. Blue Steel grew up in a nearby neighborhood but volunteered to help evacuate civilians from that neighborhood. In the process the military response forces took Blue Steel under their wing and taught him how to defend himself.

3. When *that* fails, change canon the minimum amount necessary to be consistent. Blue Steel learned his fighting skills elsewhere, but first put them to use in that neighborhood fighting the Rikti.

4. *Then* when all that fails, you make him an alien from the planet of ultimate fighting.

You *don't* say:

1. Hmm, it looks like Blue Steel's proving grounds were actually destroyed by the Rikti during the war. Hey, that gives me an idea: since we have to change Blue Steel's background anyway, wouldn't it be cool if he was an alien? And maybe its a planet where everyone is born with awesome martial arts abilities. It can be the planet of ultimate fighting! Blue Steel: strange visitor from the planet of ultimate fighting. That would be so awesome.


No, I'm afraid that's not awesome. That's failing your responsibilities as stewards of canon.

The question comes down to how easy that is to accomplish. Lets say they got in writers who decided to change who the incarnate letter writer is. How likely is it that they would contradict some hint that had been left in one of the already in-game letters?

It's not like they have revealed the writer at this time, but there are elements in the game that exist only because people were basing the past writings on that undisclosed fact. By not having a plan beforehand and sticking to it, you increase the chance you're going to write these loose ends and have elements that do not quite fit, and with as much content as already exists, that's a major concern.

I was pretty clear about this at the top of my first post: Positron specifically states his operational position as being willing to break backstory canon that hasn't made it into the story yet, but cautions writers not to break canon that is already within the game. By "operational position" that seems to be how he actually manages the dev team. That I agree with, and that's fine.

But then Positron goes farther in his blog, expanding on the *reasons* for his position, and his foundational reasons for that position don't stop there, they go all the way to stating that good story should trump canon: that canon should not "stifle" writers.

That's where I disagree with Positron. That's what canon is *supposed* to do: its *supposed* to stifle writers so they don't go flying off and writing whatever they want. If you don't want to stifle writers, you don't have continuity, you have an anthology.

Is that a fundamental MMO question?

Is an MMO better suited solely as anthology or continuity based content?

Well, the persistent world is pretty much the defining trait.

Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)

OK,... So, by implication, being 'persistent' MMOs are prevented from anthology story telling?

My experience with other MMOs is nearly non-existent, but I would think some of the recent, though limited, phasing implementations with Co* would indicate that may not be set in stone.

Thinking out loud, for what may constitute an anthology experience:
What if your 'souvenir' or 'badge' history (using some common existing labels) built up to define the results of your arc play... Similar to how a lot of single player RPG games work now? It would need to phase teams to 'your' setting if you were the leader. It would end up having intensive system requirements I imagine as thousands of players ran in the same environment phased to different conditions... Assuming infinite server power, it would be a pretty cool and nuanced experience.

Or server events that changed the 'world', changed the entire server... so the canon on Justice ended up presenting a different baseline than Virtue or Champion... invasion successes or failures, for instance. Or a failed trial to save the faultline damn, or the Eden trial that doesn't succeed and the DE take over... or a later trial that restores it for a period of time (a la RV, in a way I suppose just PvE...)


But I guess even those scenarios would come back to canon in a way, there would need to be a foundation for even the allowed flexible portions to rest upon. Because canon would still need to define what was mutable and immutable... and there would remain a limited range of mutability...

Basically, yes.


What you've done is created a system whereby each individual player has a *separate* canon, but there is still canon. The question is still, should the writers of the game be allowed to change *your* history as you see it. It happened to you, you experienced it, you incorporated it into your story, only now it didn't happen.

I21 destroys Galaxy City. It was here, and now its not here (or at least, only its ruins are here). What if the devs decided to retcon it out of existence instead. There never was a Galaxy City. It wasn't destroyed, it was just never here at all. That's fundamentally different.

I love you.

It's in the training arcs from Twinshot - Grym mentions it, and so does Blue Steel - which goes against the offical website info on the Skulls.

Hmm, that explains it. I haven't gotten around to that arc yet.

Maybe it's just these Skulls in this arc.

"Y'know Fred, maybe I'll skip the whole 'real skull' thing right now, while I'm on my trial membership..."

Canon Cannon

Now see, I saw his closing statement still in the context of his operational position - ie what kind of boss would I be if I hired new staff to be creative but then held them back from doing the job I hired them to do? It's Posi being honest and still making the best operational decision he can make without feeling like a hypocrite.

The only limit to evolving new continuity while still acknowledging pre-established canon is imagination (or lack thereof). I've not seen CoH retcon any of its past. Its evolved with a nod to its own history while moving the story and environments forward into new creative directions. Only bad writers and editors retcon the past- and it's always because those folks lack flexibility and imagination when faced with other peoples contributions. And so they wipe the slate clean because its easier to start fresh than creatively renovate and improve upon.

Posi is *not* one of those people who hits the retcon button if he could.

As a longtime player, I can see he likes to share the creative opportunities. First Ward is a stunning example.

As a published author, I respect his regrets and generosity when it comes to writing the continuing story that someone else started. It's not an easy decision.

As someone who manages people, I admire his ability to mentor creativity and success in his staff. No easy task for a developer who has been working on the same game for nearly 10 years.


I think all of you have reason to fear anytime new leadership comes aboard and says "lets make it easy on ourselves and retcon everything." That is a bad business move, but you don't stifle writers who say "this was good but lets expand on it in a new way." Good writing stays relevant no matter what - and so do good development decisions - which is why we should all be glad Posi is still on board and sharing his vision for the game after all this time. Even better though, he is mentoring others to share their vision too and thats not something we should ever take for granted or seem ungrateful for.

No Arcana, he's definitely not advocating 'retcon' to protect creativity. He is just being a good boss.

As always though, we can agree to disagree.

*cough* You're new around here, right?