Thread by @squidlord

I think (and write) a lot about writing and how stories are constructed, the underlying narrative architecture which supports storytelling in general.

This is an interesting approach to laying out a dual-axis analysis.

https://twitter.com/Fiannawolf2/status/1669225239887376384

It's worth talking about why some things are popular and some things aren't, however. Whether you're talking about a #TTRPG or the short story you're trying to get placed in a magazine.

Firstly, there's a reason that when you try to think of a "Bright" story you can't – it's because they're boring as crap. If you try to read one or try to write one, you'll discover very quickly the reason why.

Story is driven by conflict.

Without a conflict, what you have is a travelogue not a story. That's not to say that travelogue can't be good fun to read but it is what it is.

In order to have meaningful conflict, you need to have characters who want different things. Those different things will have different moral weightings in the eyes of most readers.

If you really want to play on hard mode, try writing a story in a largely positive setting with opposed characters, both of whom have really good reasons that the reader will agree with.

Theoretically, that would be a "Bright" story. Unfortunately, using this analysis, it would actually be described as a "Grim" story or possibly "Grimbright." Because the reader would feel as if good intentions couldn't have good outcomes.

Probably the most interesting suggested construct here is "Nobledark", even though the description is schizophrenic and waves its hands way too much.

A setting constructed along these lines inevitably gives rise to the question of "if good people could have fixed this the whole time, why haven't they?" And then the whole thing re-collapses into something else.

I would suggest that #BattleTech at its best represents this approach to storytelling rather than being Grimbright.

As I talk about this, you can probably figure out what one of the problems with this setting alignment system really is:

Most of the time, whether you like the setting or not determines whether you think it's noble or grim. And "Bright" doesn't really accord with a proper description.

I would be tempted, if I wanted to keep this sort of description, to go with "Light" as my opposition to "Dark," not just for the obvious reasons.

The TTRPG #Microscope used the terms Dark and Like to differentiate/describe periods which generally had good outcomes versus generally had bad outcomes.

lamemage.com/microscope/

Good and bad ended up being quite contextual but leaned heavily on the premises set up at the beginning of the game when the players determined what the general thesis was.

Without that context, how do you decide? And with that context – things can invert pretty heavily.

After all, is Warhammer 40k really dark if your thesis is "war never ends, you always get to fight, and you enjoy doing it"? From the perspective of orks (and players) isn't that a net positive?

So this is an interesting shorthand but it has some obvious flaws even though it can lead to some productive discussion. The productive discussion is always the desired outcome.

Thinking about it more, I would argue that most military focused sci-fi isn't Bright at all but somewhere between True Neutral and Grim. Once the limbs come away from the body, it's hard to justify throwing the thumbs up.

My own style is far more a composite of Dark and Grim without actually being Grimdark because that's a silly space.