Thread no longer active

[Mesenterium]

Thread no longer active - user left site

 

[Folly-Derrezzed]

I say take everything you love, blend it together, and market it!

 

[Folly-Derrezzed]

I do believe that some of the things I love are overdone, and therefore when exploring them it is inevitable that I fall into such themes. Still, I try always to give them my personal touch, but still, that feeling of "this is not original enough" is always there. Maybe that's because I have seen people online criticising extensively different works, works that sometimes are seen in high regards, and then my confidence when it comes to it is just lost. But, in the end, that's internet in a nutshell.
The problem is definitely rooted in me though.

There are 7 trillion people on the earth and weve been making things for 10,000 years. Originality is gonna be difficult if not impossible.
I have this sayin. "Dont think about it too hard".

 

[Idea]

Have you been running around in such loop of originality when creating? How do you deal with it?

Let's start by making one thing clear: If you deal with broad strokes, every story has been done before. Every idea. The only exception to this is stories that are only possible to come into awareness due to technological development, such as stories of virtual reality. Even then though, at the most fundamental level even those stories were probably already told, and probably by someone better at this than any of us.

So how can we be original? Well, we stop focusing on the broad strokes. You will not find originality by doing an idea that others haven't done before, but by exploring the depths of that idea in a way or to a depth that others didn't. You can bring originality by using the one thing which is truly unique to each of us, your own perspective, your own angle to view and approach the idea.

In the anime date a live for instance, there is a character named Tohka who quickly reveals to be a very energetic, cheerful but tremendously airheaded and gluttonous girl. Now, anime fans might recognize this as a typical "gluttonous genki girl" type character, a common trope in fact. Indeed, this leads many to dismiss the character as just the next in a long list of characters that fits the trope. However, a more in depth look at the context of the situation reveals that at that point we know she is someone with no memories, who is attacked every time she appears on Earth and accidentally causes massive destruction. Her circumstances make her isolated, but now she feels like she is finally getting to form a connection and the learn the world can be a wonderful place after all, a place that won't reject her very existence. Of course she'll be attached, and without any knowledge of course she won't pick up on regular things as easily.

What appeared to be a very generic character turns out to have a lot more depth than a surface-level viewing would reveal. Just because a trope can be identified, doesn't mean that's all there is to the idea, and I feel like a lot of people fall into the pit trap of dismissing an idea as unoriginal just for containing tropes.

For another example, I made a D&D homebrew race called "the mantid" which is based on the race by the same name from World of Wacraft. I didn't even make that many new elements: I just lifted my favorite aspects of the race- their culture focused on a single overriding will of the queen, plus their preservation of the greatest heroes within amber so they can be awakened to rescue their empire in a time of need- and just ran with it, I just focused more on those aspects, and saw what consequences or implications they would have. I ended constructing something which sure for those that know the race would see the similarities but is ultimately a very different result.

Even using the exact same elements you can make something completely different just by changing the priorities.

- - - -

At the same time, however, it would be foolish to propose that we should simply ignore the broad strokes of an idea. It WILL have an impact, because it will invite comparison. However, I don't believe this by itself is a valid criticism. I often protest against calling things "generic" because it says nothing about the actual product being criticized, and rather comments on the critic's own viewing experiences. If they saw more of this or that they might call those things generic, not because of a lack of quality in the trope, but just because they personally saw more of it.

On the other hand, I do believe that in creating something especially common ideas, one has to keep in mind that there are others out there, and you thus need to keep in mind what kind of audience has formed for it, and what the strengths and faults of the idea are, even more than usual, so as to have an advantage over those competitors.

- - - -

To make a long story short:
1. There is no such thing as broad strokes originality anymore. Current originality comes from the details, from exploring something in depth from your own angle. Doing this is more natural than it may seem at first. You literally just need to explore the depth and implications of what you write. By implications I don't mean anything pertaining to the real world, but to narrative cohesion. What prompted X, and what are the consequences of X being a fact? Your own unique angle of approach will shine through as you push forward and look deeper and deeper into things, and there you may really run into those original ideas.

2. Nomatter what tropes are present, or how many, this doesn't mean the idea can't be original. Being able to identify one, therefore, doesn't mean you idea isn't original, unless the trope or cliche encompasses completely every facet of what you made. Furthermore, even using the exact same elements, it's possible to approach them in a new way and thus still be original.

3. Originality, and especially broad strokes originality is no sign of a lack of quality, and matters only because you are competing for people's attention with other possibly similar ideas. This can be overcome by simply making a better offer suited to the people who want that kind of idea, refining the initial idea rather than discarding it or just copying it.


Hope this helps. Best of luck and happy RPing!

 

[Onmyoji]

As people above said, original doesn't mean better.

If you take, let's say, a well-known fairytale plot and write a story based on it, the plot will be not original for sure. But what will make it original is that it will be written by you. Every writer is unique and every new take on popular topic will still bring something new.

 

[Crayons]

In terms of RP you have to think to yourself: Why does this need to be original? It's not like it's going to be on TV and people are going to watch and judge and give reviews, RP solely exists for the entertainment of the people involved in it. And lots of people like non-original things, sometimes precisely because they are unoriginal.

A non-original setting can be a good thing in RP because everyone has some basic knowledge of it before they start. There is no need to read through copious lore documents. There is not much room for one person thinking one thing, and one another, e.g. "you didn't say firearms weren't allowed," you all just pretty much know. This counts whether it's a fandom setting or non-fandom but something everyone understands: WW2 France, Medieval Fantasy, etc.

A non-original plot can be a good thing in RP too. Suppose you have seen a ton of awesome soul-mate romances or sports movies. You still haven't been in one, you still haven't written one. And maybe you want to. Maybe you just want to step into a familiar plot so you can concentrate on developing your character, or improving your writing, or just to relax more because you don't need to worry so much.

The same could apply to characters too. Suppose I am a small, quiet, friendly woman* and I want to play Drognaz the Dwarf Berserker. Maybe this trope has been done to death, but still, I haven't experienced the joy of being or writing that character.

So, in essence, I think totally original RPs only appeal to a certain subset of the RPing community and you really shouldn't worry about it.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with the concept that all ideas have already been done and if you're writing fiction professionally you better pull your finger out and do something original.


*This is not a description of the post author. XD

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Original =/= better. Content is not original as soon as you take inspiration from something else. This is equivalent to chasing happiness in my opinion. You’ll never reach pure happiness if you spend your whole life chasing it. Don’t waste energy trying to be 100% original.

Very well put.

Spoiler: Spoiler

"Happiness isn't tangible, John. We can't capture it, or bottle it up for later use... It comes in the little moments. The ones that slip away if we let 'em."
-Crusader (Owen James Thorne), Mythic Universe

I look at originality like a recipe. Many recipes share the same ingredients as one another, but every recipe tastes different because it's prepared, cooked and presented in a slightly different way.

 

[Idea]

Honestly, this is something I have been trying to fight against. I have this mentality of "if it falls under a trope, then it is not original" when it comes to my characters, and that sucks. I love to play the Machiavellian type of characters, but let's face it: how many times has that been made already? But adding my own touch to that character and moulding them makes them different, right? I guess I can do this consistently, but when it comes to the point of asking myself "What makes this character different from other ones similar" the only possible answer I can think of has to do with tastes and a bit of their background, and that, to me, isn't a valid answer.

I cannot change how you feel about things, nomatter how much I argue. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume I was indisputably right, the truth of the matter is that human emotion is a complicated thing and it doesn't always respond to logic or what we acknowledge on an intellectual level.

Point being, whatever solution I bring, I hope they can bring some reassurance, but neither I nor you should expect it to completely fix one's doubts. I think the only way to begin doing that is to find the courage to put the work out there anyway and seek people's actual perception.

Now, I want to say there is a difference between putting a different coat of paint over the same thing and actually making something whose details make it new. I think a character having different quirks doesn't necessarily make them much of a different character, unless of course those play a relevant role in how the character operates within a narrative.

However, the interplay of those various factors, I think is a valid answer to your concern. Maybe every aspect of your character has been done by some other character, but has that combination been done before? And even if it did, are the reasons that brought them into being, or the context of the story and how they play to that context something which you believe has been done before, or at the vert least enough so that it can no longer be considered an original take?

It's a question I can't answer for you, but something to consider. Every character has tropes. Hell, just a story having a plot is technically speaking a trope. Is every story with a plot unoriginal because it has a trope as a major factor? Of course not. Because there is more to it than just that trope. And even if a story was entirely tropes, the combination of tropes can still play out in original ways.

This is something I also do so when creating a character. Each personality trait is there for a reason and I always try to foresee how that also has an implication on that character's life. This is very important because it brings cohesion to their story and to who they are. Still, I feel like I am falling into clichés. I feel like everything I am exploring is just so overdone that there is no possible approach to make it different.

There is always a way to explore it differently. If you can't see any more space, then you've just dug another layer. The utmost fundamental core of human experience is not so easily reached.

Furthermore, to add to what I said earlier, it might help to think of it this way: Why is a trope bad? Why would it be bad if an idea isn't that original? Surely it would be because "people might find it boring" right?

But that is a lottery. It depends entirely on the other person. Think about what kinds of examples you use when you end up making the comparisons yourself and saying your characters are unoriginal. Would someone else really know all those examples and form the connection?

 

[Idea]

Precisely, that's why I like to think about how certain character's quirks could influence the story itself, but I also like to add a twist to their personalities. Certain things that might seem inconsistencies, but that in fact are simply the result of internal conflict, if it makes sense. As humans, we have very diverse internal conflicts, or maybe not, in a bigger picture.

Yeah. I often point out people don't really have contradictions, we are just beings so complex that even minute changes of circumstances can make the domino pieces fall in an entirely different way.

That definitely puts things in perspective. I think it kind of depends. Most part of the characters I am most drawn to and that I take inspiration from are themselves characters that inspired many others out there, so I believe it is simply normal to take inspiration from them.

Yep. With one exception, humans only combine or derive, we don't create something entirely from scratch.

Indeed, I guess that this problem is deeply rooted in my own personal insecurities and on how people might perceive my writing and/or characters. It is foolish to think in such way, and I believe that if I am worried about this, maybe I shouldn't even roleplay. It is something I must overcome, not sure how, and not overthinking about things is a hard thing to do.

I truly believe the best way to get out of that loop of thought is to - if being convinced that originality is either there on the finer details/depths, or that it doesn't matter doesn't work for you- is to put the work out there and see people's reactions. Even if they don't really find it that original, they might appreciate your work and effort and positive feedback like that can help one's confidence hold up better.

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

True indeed, and I am a firm believer of this. I think that my problem is that I want to "invent ingredients" if it makes sense. And I guess that you can't do that. My idea of originality is stuck to that though. Making something that no one has ever done before, with things that someone has never used before. Whereas I don't think that it is completely unachievable, at least the first part, the second one is, in my opinion, impossible. New ideas sparkle from different combination of different concepts and about how we explore them, I believe.

I know what you mean, and I agree. It's very hard to execute from within the confines and chaos of RP. Something truly unique or even special has to have bullet-proof characters with a bullet-proof plot. These things are often made great by the scope of vision. It's very hard to find that sort of chemistry with a group dynamic. Ideally you have established partnerships already that you can use to fill a small roster. I tried so many times to do a few of my special ideas and virtually no one really gets it without something akin to a series of discord conversations about what the project is really about and where it is going.

 

[Crayons]

Your point of view is valid, and I can totally see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree, at least partially. The concept of originality as something that has never been done implies that ideas are innate concepts. It implies that ideas are theoretical and abstract perceptions. And whilst this is not wrong (as described by Descartes), if we analyse through an empirical point of view, for example, assuming a Lockean perspective, we can also define ideas as the result of building blocks of simpler ideas, as if we are arranging and combining simpler ideas in order to form a more complex one. So, in a way, an idea might result of the combination of other ones, and those other ones might have been already explored as well.
The Descartian approach does not explain all possible sources of ideas, just the most introspective abstract ones. And those ones are often not used in literature, as literature deals with tangible concepts. Abstraction helps a lot when it comes to science though, especially when dealing with purely theoretical fields, such as Maths and Physics. Biological sciences are often influenced by what the eyes can see, the empirical. And I dare to say that the ground theories (ideas) oof Biological sciences are rooted in our real world and not on some purely theoretical concept. As well as literary concepts. There are often certain exceptions, but when dealing with an abstract concept in literature, you need to make it tangible, and that implicates a representational approach to the topic (ex.: the personification of death).

Taking the series Dark as an example, we know it is about time travelling and nuclear energy. And those two concepts are things that have been done to exhaustion. They have been explored so many times in the past, still, I consider the series to be original because it explores those two concepts in ways that have never been done before.

I understand your take on originality though. It is interesting when someone creates and explores concepts that have not been explored, at least not to a relevant extent before. It is great to have a bit of fresh air and actually enjoy newer things. It is great when people create something that others have never seen before. And what really blocks me from actually dwelling into it is that feeling of "I think this has already been done, people will judge it" because there are people who just go through interest checks and are like "this has already been done to death, pass".

Personally, I don't think I would ever be able to write something professional. I am not an artist, I am not a writer. But I believe that I take roleplaying or any other creative hobby of mine a bit too seriously. Maybe that's the problem. Perfectionism is also that is very present when it comes to things I enjoy, therefore, worrying about being original is always a problem when roleplaying and/or writing personally. Because I don't know if the ideas I am exploring have already been explored. It is also impossible to read every single book, to watch every single series, to see every single piece of art that has already been created, so, in a way, we can be using ideas that have already been used before, and that also scares me.
Plus, what about stories that are based on true life events? Realism is a literary school that was based on real-life. Does that mean that works produced by such writers are unoriginal? Also, what about classics? Even though most part of them were written a long time ago they are still used today as an inspiration to many other works.

Honestly, I guess that my idea of originality is located between your idea of originality and a more empirical one, for instance. It is not purely abstract and different, still, I think you can create combinations of ideas that have never been created before. That is what I want to achieve, but that is also I have not been able to do so successfully.

I think you're taking a rather unusual definition of originality if you're using it to mean "a concept that has as yet not existed in the universe", because that's not what I, or most people, consider to be the core of originality, and something that is best left to theoretical physics. Let's take Dark as my example, since you've used that as yours. Do nuclear power plants, German forests, small town murder mysteries, and time travel already exist as concepts? Yes, of course. Have they ever been put together in such a fashion as in Dark, along with a (convoluted) story that has never before been told? No. Is it saying something new about these things, or letting you think about them in different ways? Yes. Therefore I would say Dark is original. Can I spot influences in it from earlier things? Yes, of course. Has this story been told before, no. You don't have to invent new colours to paint an original painting.

Why should using ideas that have been used before scare you? We live in a culture (sometimes multiple cultures), and therefore we have generations and generations of cultural accretion which we build on when we create new work, and those generations after us build on ours. Building on foundations that already exist does not make your work unoriginal, it just makes it multilayered and culturally sophisticated.

 

[Crayons]

Apparently we are on the same note here then, because honestly, I don't think that the concept of originality you presented on this message differs from the one users have have been presenting before. I guess what we all wanted to say is that new ideas are originated from different concepts that can be arranged together in ways that were never explored before. I believe that it is what you are trying to convey, correct?
I supposed that you meant that you needed to come up with a concept that was entirely independent of other base concepts in order to create a story, and when it comes to literature that level of abstraction is impossible. Sorry for interpreting in the wrong way.

Using such ideas is not what scares me. In fact, I guess that "scare" isn't really the term that I am searching for, but rather "to discourage", if it makes more sense. It is just hard to come up with stuff if you're not particularly inspired. And it is even worse when you've passed years feeling this creative exhaustion, so to speak.
Once again, my opinion aligns with yours after all. I don't really think that taking inspiration from other sources makes something unoriginal, or that using concepts that were explored before, but in a different way and alongside other ones either. If even, it creates a denser layered setting, where a whole multitude of mathematics can be explored in multiple directions.

Yeah.

If you're feeling uninspired the best thing you can do is stop trying and get some more cultural inputs: watch movies, visit galleries (lol quarantine), read books, just get loads of stuff into your brain so that your brain can mix concepts around and throw you out some ideas. I feel like the worst thing to do with a creative block is to try and force it.

Inspiration is a finicky thing. I've never really gone for years without it, but I imagine that must be pretty frustrating.

 

[Janey]

There is no originality anymore. Everything has been done so don't dwell on it.

My first original character I seriously made. I didn't want her to be marysue. I ended up with the most bland pos trash character. My least fav character by far I've ever made.

Just do what you like and don't care about anything else.

 

[Jet]

Originality comes from blending concepts that already exist, more than creating 100% original ideas. Don't worry too much about every small part being original, worry more about the overall picture being original.

 

[Idea]

My first original character I seriously made. I didn't want her to be marysue. I ended up with the most bland pos trash character. My least fav character by far I've ever made.

To be fair, this doesn't really have anything to do with originality, it has to do with a lack of experience and direction. Most people's first character will suck pretty hard.

 

[Kazami42]

Originality is not in of itself a quality. But seemingly this isn't what the OP post is trying to get at to me.

Simply put, there is no true originality. Even if it looks different the essence is the same, just like the firing mechanism of a firearm. You can add onto, take away, or reshape it, but it's still the same thing with one vision and one purpose. Ask my boi Kane, he knows all about it.

Now there is an option around this, which bypasses it merely by one's own merit. A spin if you will. And what real originality could be viewed as being in the modern age:
One's own take, view, perception, or "one's own originality given to a particular subject, character, or fiction." It can be a direct carbon copy either in function, appearance, mentality, or a combination. But the way in which you go about it, structure it, manipulate it, and either write or program it, is a matter of which lays down the real foundations for it's quality. If you do it your own way, even if nothing is added to it, it solely relies upon your merits. And therefore can be considered an original spin or anti-thesis upon an archetype, fiction, character itself, equipment, etc.

 

[Grey]

Originality is an impossible thing to aim for, as some have already pointed out. Also as someone who exclusively works with original content it means nothing to the majority of roleplayers on the site.
So I lean into my habits. It's not about the source or familiarity of the idea, but the execution. I constantly refine my content and the presentation. I focus on the cohesion and quality of the final product and haven't worried about originality in a decade,

Whether or not that works, who fucking knows. You've seen what I do.

 

[wickedlittlecritta]

I think everyone's hashed out about originality not really being a thing, so another point that I think is worth bringing up:

You know why there are 500 high school or mafia or super hero rps? Because people like them! People want to play them! So many that we can't all fit into one game! Sometimes we don't actually want something new, we want something familiar and comforting (especially when times are weird and hard).