I think Underworld is the first movie I've seen that models the whole Relationship Map, Kicker, etc set-up.

I'd see it for that alone if your interested.

The movie starts of with a RM in place, and then the opening scene is a kicker. From that point on the movie is all about meaningful choices made by Selene (the main protagonists) which causes the RM to shift and stuff to be revealed as a result.

It even goes into No Myth storytelling as the world and setting details are very sketchy in the film, and the only bits revealed is the stuff pertaining to Selene's journey.

I thought it was very well written - but I've got used to my minority status on this one.

Anyway, if your planning on seeing it, it's almost as if he used the RM method to write it.

Couple of notes:

1) Does the relationship map have anything to do with GNS? I've used it constantly for sim games -- in fact, I kind of think of it as a sim technique.

2) The relationship map is a standard method of writing a prose story. It's one that many authors use. I believe that Ron got it from them.
I learned it as a writing technique (under the name relational web) and later adopted it as a method of plotting RPG campaigns.
Similarly, fictional worlds are usually sketchy, and only sketched out as written. Some authors are very clever and go back in and fill in details (like, say, Tolkein) but some don't. I think what you're watching is an author who didn't backtrack so much.

So I guess what I'm saying is "Well, yes, but it's all over the place." Read almost any novel, watch almost any movie, and you will see common storytelling techniques in place.

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Ben,

I agree with your post in general, but what makes the relationship map as I define it useful for Narrativist play, is that the GM is working from the map and back-story issues to set up scenes, not from pre-planned outcomes for scenes or relying on fiat to provide such outcomes during play. Combined with Bangs (as defined in Sorcerer, and refined in Sorcerer & Sword), which place the onus of significant decision-making squarely on the players, the relationship map is a powerful technique for facilitating thematic story creation.

Now, if that's what you're doing, then I have news: you ain't playing Simulationist.

One more point - most explicit techniques of writing resemble the "storymap" (see Legends of Alyria) more than relationship maps from Sorcerer. The storymap begins with a variety of conflicting interests in a locale, assigns people and personalities to them, and then (in role-playing) players take on various characters that they've decided will be protagonists or other significant roles (foils, antagonists). The relationship map is far more stripped down and represents far less material in terms of "story" - for instance, the protagonists are usually not in the map, and the lines of the map do not represent feelings, intentions, or alliances, but rather are strictly limited to kinship and sexual contact.

Again, though, I agree with your basic point, that such a map (either kind, actually) can be widely observed throughout literature and myth with very little stretching.

Best,
Ron

I can safely say I've not seen the relationship map technique being used in any Action Movie I've seen? They usally have A to B plotting - that's the difference.

But I'm sure, your right and it's used in novels, and more 'substantial' movies. Well, I know your right, I'm not that dim :)

Not seen it in move action genre stuff though - tends to be flowcharts?

Either way, just an observation.

Ian O'Rourke wrote: The movie starts of with a RM in place, and then the opening scene is a kicker. From that point on the movie is all about meaningful choices made by Selene (the main protagonists) which causes the RM to shift and stuff to be revealed as a result.

It even goes into No Myth storytelling as the world and setting details are very sketchy in the film, and the only bits revealed is the stuff pertaining to Selene's journey.

Ben Lehman wrote: Similarly, fictional worlds are usually sketchy, and only sketched out as written. Some authors are very clever and go back in and fill in details (like, say, Tolkein) but some don't. I think what you're watching is an author who didn't backtrack so much.

Actually, I'd see this style of writing as good, basic theme driven story writing.

For Tolkien, the setting was as important as the story: unless Middle Earth was living and breathing, for him the story would be less resonant. Where the story was taking place was as important as what was happening.

The influence of this has prevaded most subsequent "standard" fantasies, and many fantasy fans feel that the setting is as important, if not more so, than the story. I don't feel that way, but if it keeps them happy, I've no problem with it.

But, as is being talked about elsewhere, for most stories setting exists primarily to frame situation. I was watching The Usual Suspects (again) last night, and thinking back on it, it quietly demands a fair bit of assumed setting (corrupt NY police, international crime syndicates, etc), but these aren't foregrounded as the interest is in how the characters interact from that first line up, and how it leads to the final bloodbath (along, of course, with the question "Who is Kayzer Soze?").

Compare that to a later Bryan Singer film, X-Men. Now, given that it's a superhero story with a well developed back story, there's a lot of setting to be communicated. But it's primarily done through situation (senate hearings, waking up in the underground base) which is developing as the setting is presented.

Then compare that to the films of LoTR: still a great deal of setting, but some Tolkien fans are up in arms that it's being dropped in favour of "histrionics." I'd say it's that Peter Jackson is only giving as much setting as is needed to power the situations (and, occassionaly, not enough in my opinion).

And so to Underworld, which I haven't seen. But what I'm really scratching my head about is the "No Myth" thing. AFAICS, No Myth is specific to rpg's, because of the collborative creation element. Where Illusionism isn't an option, No Myth isn't an option either. What you've got is nice spare story telling. The alternative would be large expository scenes that demonstrate little beyond the scriptwriter's love of their own mythology (or the extent to which they'd stolen someone else's, possibly).

Nyway, I've more to say on the relationship map thing, but I'll spin that off, as it's got a lot of other stuff bound into it.

I may be using the No Myth thing wrong then, as it's an element I'm not overly familiar with - been away a while, and everythings much more complicated :)

I was meaning in the following context:

The movie did not spend a great deal of time detailing exactly how 'Vampires' worked, or how the 'Werewolves' worked. Neither did it detail the setting in any other context than the drama surrounding Selene's decisions.

Now, a lot of people are complaining about the movie, which is fair enough, it's not an Oscar winner or anything, but a lot of complaints centre on the 'lack of a world being detailed', or lack of consistency in how the Vampires work due to them not being greatly detailed.

So, a lot of the complaints are about a lack of setting exposition, missing the fact that, for better or wose, Underworld has elements that make it better than it's action movie competition because it is not 'flowchart to the next action scene' storytelling, which most action movies tend to be.

Well, it does monkey a little with the accepted "Hollywood Mythos" of vamps & wolves, so not having a scene with "We must be as careful as humans of giving away our position in mirrors, as we can be seen in them contrary to poluar misconception!" seems, to some, a failing.

And I say feh. Doesn't enlighten situation, character or anything but the presumptions of the viewer. And distracts from Kate Beckinsale's backside in shiny leather.