Well all, we made it through Shiva.  It was a long journey - much longer than I expected - but we made it through.  We must have learned lots from the experience.  Now is the time to share what you learned.

We're going to do something called a post-mortem.  This is a pretty usual business technique for figuring out what you did well with a finished project and what you can improve on for next time.  

The rules are simple - you tell us what you think worked and what you think didn't.  You can bitch as much as you want.  If you have any ideas on how we could improve what you are bitching about then share them too.  The one thing you shouldn't do is finger-point, so no naming of names and try to keep things from getting too personal.

I guess I'm up first, so:

The things I thought worked.

The team. everyone worked well together, there were no large disagreement. People were fairly prompt about posting. Three was no stomping off because someone didn't like how things were going, we finished - other people stepped in when they were needed. For the most part, people followed instructions.

The characters.  For the most part they were entertaining and I was interested in what they were going to do next.

The writing.  People were fairly careful with their scenes. There were fewer typos than in the killer game and for the most part the characters were kept up.  I think this was largely due to the buddy system.

The infrastructure.  I think the instructions were pretty clear and I think the tracksheet worked well.

The things I think didn't work.

I think as a whole the storyline didn't work out.  I not sure of any way to fix this unless we do more outlining.  I really don't want to do outlining so any suggestions would help.

The dreams were meant to be a control structure for the story to hang on.  A sort of metered support that moved the story along.  I don't think they did this for Shiva. Perhaps if we made the support scenes more rigid that would solve the storyline problem.

I think the scene types didn't really work.  I think next time I would like to try Act I, Act II and Act III as the scene types.

I found it hard to keep the challenge aspect of the rules going, and I really didn't think the challenges given added anything to the story.   I think next time I won't include challenges.

I think there were too many writers.  Next time, instead of dividing the storyline inside the game, I'm going to have separate games going.  With less people in each game and more scenes to write.

That's about all I can think of at the moment.  It's enough to start this thread.  If I think of more I will add it.   Feel free to discuss these points and add your own as well. You might totally disagree with me - well then let me know.

Personally, I think that when you consider the scope of the story, the size of the cast is actually quite fitting.

I would've liked the turns to be re-arranged, though, so that at least one character from each tribe would survive and meet up near the end. Even as it stands, we have one winner, but two survivors (well, not really, but you know what I mean). So what was the point in killing everybody off? I know it was a game but, in a re-write (as a standard screenplay) I suggest keeping most of the core characters,

I think the "re-incarnations", while they did bring us two very decent characters, pretty much screwed the flow of the game. They were introduced way too late.

--Julio

I think overall it was a good game and an interesting writing exercise to do. I do think it went on for too long but think that was less to do with the amount of players but more to do with the quite complex storylines. I have already mentioned that the genre was certainly not for me and as a result really struggled at times to understand what the hell was going on. I remember when it was my turn to write I needed at least a day to read everything over and over again just to get a grip on the story. I would be interested in hearing how everyone else got on with it but for me I know I only got to write two scenes and yet this game lasted over two months, While I would certainly like to see these games continue I think that the contributions certainly need to be speeded up somehow.

I definitely think that there should be some-kind of structure to the next challenge, we did seem to hit a point where there was nothing driving the story forward, nothing to aim for. You could almost say upfront that there are certain points we have to hit by certain dates and keep the story flowing. Personally I would like to see a story with less magic and fantasy and do something fairly middle of the road like an ensemble movie like Crash or Magnolia. Something like that would really work, maybe have 5-6 storylines with 2-3 writers on each and the idea is that in the 3rd act all the storylines merge together. But I know that we all have different tastes and genre is going to be hard if not impossible to suit everybody.

It is good what you are doing Michael and I know it is an experiment more than anything else, it is a good learning curve for us all so at the end of the day it will always be a positive experience. I hope you keep it up and lets try another one.

I liked the scope of the story moer than anything else. I think for an exercise like this, the magnitude worked very well because it provided plenty of room to write. The characters being created by the players allowed a wide variety of people and solved one of the biggest problems most scripts have: similar characters. All of ours were unique since they were facets of the different writers.

That being said, the different writers tended to take different paths with the characters when it was their turn creating a lot of character inconsistency. One person would see a character one way, and the next turn they appeared in they would be different. While people change, some changed too much. I know I can speak for my own character of Wolf when I say that he took a direction I never saw coming in the least and since no one knew what to do with him, he ended up underdeveloped instead of devoting a little time to him in the scene after he was introduced.

The final goal was good because it allowed the characters to drive to the end. I think the challenges were a good idea, but there were alot of them that were easy to pick up on because little to no creativity was being put into the challenges. I imagined the intent of the challenges were to give the characters something to do on the road and create some conflict. My challenge (so fingers aren't pointed) in the scene where I killed James was to make James and Michael fight over a weapon. I went through a lot to create that scenario. For any challnge my mind would immediately create a scenario where whatever is needed and then create an expedition to that point making it difficult to acquire it without some roadblocks. What I saw a lot of was a gun was found in the trunk of a random car by accident and they fight for a minute.

This is movie life, not real life. Action is the key to everything. Make the character work for their goals; don't let them stumble into them.

I do think if we had know what was in Michael's mind for the plot, we would have been able to guide the three storylines to the same point more specifically than the random guide to Niagara Falls. I think the challenges are good with the provision that they involve some kind of action to achieve. In addition, I think the plot needs setups and payoffs, where something is discovered earlyand then used later. Michael would let us know what the setup is and when to use the setup as a payoff. This would be like James Bond getting the phone that controls the car and then later comes the scene where he uses the phone in a crisis situation to control it for real.

I think having plot points would be a good idea, and everyone knowing the entire plot beforehand. Now, as a point of caution, this could remove one of the most interesting elements of the game: its unpredictability. No one knew what was going to happen, but at the same time, a plot can do anything since it involves actions more than characters. If we are given the five basic plot points (catalyst, big event (which is end of act 1), pinch, crisis (which is end of act 2), and climax), then we could still do whatever with them to keep the fun factor up, but have a basic structure to write towards. Each person would be writing within the confines of one part of these points and whoever's turns it is would write the crucial turning point scenes to correspond to these points. I know the anti-structure hounds will cry and scream at the very notion since we've been very freeform to this point, but structure is a critical point of any Hollywood film -- you know, the kind you have to write to get in the door.

How much writing would fall into each of these points? Believe it or not, based on how prolific some of us were, no more than two scenes between each point of acts 1 and 3 and no more than 4 on either side of the act 2 pinch. Following this ideology, I would see the scene breakdown as 2,2,4,4,2,1 (that last one being the denoument after the climax), or a total of 15 "scenes" or posts. Not much huh?

That would give the story direction and structure, and might even maintain the interest in it longer. Yes, it would need fewer players, but at the same time, you could potentially have more games more often to allow more varied participation. After all, you could ask for characters but creating a character would not have to be a commitment to write, since we would need more characters than writers for some plots.

My two cents.

There have been some very good points mentioned and I'm glad we have this thread to share the aspects that we feel we can improve upon.  Obviously coming from a number of different perspectives, various ages, genres of interest, male vs female, and different countries, I think our stories are lavishly different than the norm.   

I think that Michael had put a lot of forethought and layout into this game from the very beginning and he did an excellent job of keeping track of us all.    

I do know that we never got to his "planned from the beginning", end result because the nature of the story was driven by the dream sequences.  I'm not saying anything negative about the dreams.  (I don't want anyone's panties to get in a bunch )   I especially loved the dreams, especially the earlier ones where they were more fractured and dream like in nature instead of more backstory oriented.

Because of this, I feel very strongly that in our next adventure there has to be some sort of outline to guide us in the direction of our destination...much as a person has a skeleton...can you imagine us all without one...how would we walk or get anywhere?   

Structure is NOT a bad thing...it is necessary, so I don't understand when some don't like that aspect in a work.  Even when you work alone you have to know where you are going...so I would like to see that change in our next exercise.

As was mentioned above, it took a lot of time to get familiar with the prior scenes in order to write our turn...but I think that is just the way it is.  I referred frequently to the track sheet and character descriptions that Cornetto kept ready and available. As we traveled I googled the maps for the area, I googled all kinds of stuff to get acclimated to the area. I believe it is an important part of the exercise...and while I agree it takes a hell of a lot of time...I think the scenes that followed this practice showed it.  The scenes that came out of no where, seemed to not fit in and in my mind (and that could be unfairly felt), I reasoned that it was due to this part of the exercise not being utilized.    

I think that perhaps this is where a lot of the disconnect came in and where I got frustrated the most.

I especially liked my challenge, the red barchetta car as it became an empowering element in Sam's change and took my character somewhere I never would have gone.  I would like to have the challenge posted after the scene so we could see how it was written in.  I would find that i nteresting and motivating

I would like us try something more true to life by way of story next time and not go the way of strange animals and events. Both of the last two attempts, SS Craven and Shiva, have gone very astray from the initial intent.

I agree that the 2 characters added at the last were under developed based on when they came into the story, although I personally loved both of them for different reasons and I used both for the ending because they were a focus of a dream that ultimately could have been better if there characters were developed more.    That, in and of itself is a whole nother' story!

So in a nutshell:
Outline or Structure|Goal to keep us on target

The Dreams lead us in a different direction (not because they were bad but because they were very cool and good and you just had to go there). I think the story ended where the dreams took us throughout the story...and that was to more of a mystical element.

If one agrees and joins in to work on an exercise, we should understand the committment level that goes along with it and use the tools provided to keep the story connected and on target.

Keep challenges and have them posted after the scene goes up are at the top of our scene heading so people can see how it was utilized to drive the story.

Overall - I believe each time we do this sort of work we are improving and learning vast amounts of information that will help us grow and mature as people who love to use the written word.  Great Job everyone!  

Special applaud to our Captain!  The honorable, Michael Cornetto!!!

Well, I thought this game was fun first of all. I enjoyed it from start to finish despite my differing opinions on some aspects of the story. I think everyone did a wonderful job both with keeping the story moving by not having too much delay between entries and by really getting into the characters and fleshing them out.

I liked being in different tribes because that really helped in terms of keeping things flowing. Unlike the last game, when you got a heads up you didn't have to wait for the person before you to post because they weren't in your tribe and had a similar, but different storyline going on. In someways I don't like that because it splits the stories up and isolates them from one another, but in another way i do like it and think it wouldn't have gone so well if it was just a bunch of people in one place as opposed to a bunch of people in different places.

I also loved the Detroit tribe (woot, represent!). Each character had this air of individuality to them like..they can survive on their own so why do they need other people? but still had this kind of...almost desperate need for human contact and companionship. Made for some interesting interactions.

I do have to agree with George on the whole reincarnation thing, it throws the flow off and doesn't give the audience much to invest in the new character. Though Wolf and Timber were cool, there wasn't enough time between their introduction to the finish to really feel it when they died.

My biggest qualm with the story is that I was under the impression we were going for something more solid and realistic this time. Coming out of the killer game which was ridiculous, but still fun,  in terms of how many plot twists and fantastical elements were in there, I thought we were going to go for something more...I don't know...logical. I have no problem with fantastical elements inside a story, but I don't like investing time into what I think is a realistic story and having their be map questing's and all this stuff going into the research of our environment, but then have something like the snake people throw off everything that has been built upon. The environment, the characters, the weapons...everything.

So i was a little upset that this script that started off so beautifully (Really was an AMAZING introduction, big kudos to Cornetto for that one) turned into a bunch of snake people. That is something that I absolutely could not get behind. I understand the reasoning for it, its ties to Shiva and what not, but i felt that could be interpreted in a different way. Perhaps more of an emotional change than a physical change with the yellow eyes and the speech impediment.  

I feel like that would help some of the exposition because what I noticed is that people had to start coming up with ways to explain why this was going on and they said it through their characters as opposed to if it were an emotional change...someone becoming more aggressive or what have you, it's a lot easier to deal with that. It's a lot easier for a character to take notice and come up with a response, or just take notice and have it stored for a later date.

As far as the dreams go, I have a love hate relationship with them. It has nothing to do with their quality, I don't think Sandra could come up with a bad dream sequence...it is the nature of dreams to be out there but still somehow insightful, it's just I pictured something completely different with this game and still do. Maybe i'm being too literal about it? I don't know.

But yeah, I think that's all I got for right now.

It was a better experience than the killer game. It was a bit more organized and has some potential to be something.

I think one item that most of us got lost in was character. We all interpreted the characters differently. If we could only read each others brains. I don't know how to fix this problem though, but it's something I've noted.

I also think that this script should be turn into a tv series. Each person writes an episode and logline. I think we could keep track like that. It'll be more organized and we can see how structure goes.

The reincarnation item  threw things off balance and made the tale longer. I think it should be eliminated for the next time, if their is another time. lol.

Gabe

I agree with George and others that have respect for developing more structural aspects. That's definitely the way to go.

Do I have major complaints? No. Although I take things seriously and work hard, I also believe this is the beginning; not the end. If we'd done it perfectly the first time, then I'd say we're all extremely brilliant... and maybe just being brilliant and not having to work at it wouldn't be any fun.

I really enjoyed working on this. Ste's contribution of The Primitives was completely excellent and if I was working on a rewrite I'd identify The Primitives, The Followers and The Blasphemers early in the show. We couldn't though because we didn't know about them yet

Perhaps we can start building a structurally sound script using some of the elements we've identified and also the (turned out to be important) characters of Wolf and Piscivorus. I really do love them both and feel very bad to think of Pesco being dead.

I don't think anyone should feel bad. I do feel bad that I'm hearing second hand though that Michael had a different vision and it wasn't carried through. That I feel bad about.

Sandra

Just a reminder that the point of this post-mortem is not to place or take any blame.   It is purely to find out what was going through peoples heads, what they thought of how things went, what they thought didn't work, and most importantly how they perceive the process can be improved.  

Let's address some of the points brought up.

Cast-Size: Most of you seemed comfortable with the size of the cast and you thought it worked based on the scope of the story.  You liked the tribes and the way the story-lines were kept separate.  This is a good indicator that when we make our scopes smaller in order to write something we actually want to try and get produced, then we also need to have a cast size that matches.  The way that Shiva was set up is that it is three story-lines in one, each with a handful of characters.  I think we can do the same if we have three games each going independent of the other working on the same premise.  We may even be able to use the fact that there is three teams to increase the game factor without having to resort to using gimmicks like kills in the script.  Anybody have any suggestion on how we could use separate teams in the next game?

You might wonder why I'm so insistent about maintaining a game aspect to these exercises.  It's because I've seen this sort of thing tried lots of times and I've only seen it succeed twice,  Killer and Shiva.  I think this is largely due to the game atmosphere.  You have some sort of investment in what you are doing besides the scenes you write.  I think that's what makes this work and that's why I'm trying to keep it in there.  Of course, I could be totally wrong about that and it wouldn't be the first time.

Reincarnation - A couple of you thought the reincarnation didn't work out because the characters were introduced so late.  I had them scheduled earlier but no one was killed until the next to the last turn on the first round so I had to delay them.

Structure - this is a biggie.  A number of you thought that there should be more structure in this, that we should outline it.  I'm not too crazy about that idea.  First off, these scripts should not be one person's story, they should be a collective story written by all the authors. It doesn't really matter what I thought Shiva should be to begin with because I'm not the only one writing this story.

And who will draw up the outline?  I don't want to sit there and draw up an outline for you guys and then force you to follow it. Who will enforce it?  It's hard enough to get some people to take their turns or even follow the few rules we have.  The challenges didn't work out because everybody stopped giving them to me, even though it clearly states in the rules that they needed to give me the challenge,  most of the time I had to chase it up with people.  No way am I going to chase up whether someone is following an outline or not.  

Besides, I think there is a better way.  It's what the dreams were supposed to be in Shiva, and this isn't blaming Sandra because I could just as easily have not communicated well enough.  The dreams were supposed to be control points that led the story toward it's goal.  They were supposed to be a meter marker for the writers, guiding them toward Shiva and becoming clearer and more tantalizing as their journey progressed to it's end.

I think if we pick one writer each game who is there to move the story along and toward a goal, we have all the structure we need. Does that make sense?  To give an example, In the Death Race 2000 idea there was an announce scene placed every three scenes that was supposed to set up the events for the following three scenes and comment on information, like technology, that those three scenes could use.

I'm tired of typing.  So on to you...
  

I recommend these things to be considered in any potential rewrites:

Colin, who begins in the movie as an apparently important character/protagonist not be killed off.

Cordelia's uniqueness and duality be worked in an obvious; yet subtle manner in real life scenes. IE: She might very well be quiet, but brooding inside. The apparent passivity might be displayed to the audience (real life scenes) but not to the characters. Such as in an instance where she might go off to the bathroom to vent.

There are in fact too many characters in this to properly develop them all. The sad thing is that they are all worthy of their place in the spotlight. The only solution would be to write more than one Shiva with the same story but different characters in the same timeline or as others have mentioned: Consider a series.

If a series were developed, I suggest that a lesson be learned in each installment.

The potential here would be to:

Unleash Shiva The Terrible in "some way" at the start of the show. The inciting incident thus causes upheaval in one or two of the character's lives and their challenge helps them to understand something about their world or themselves. Each show could thus be valuable in more than just an entertainment sense.

An idea here that comes off the top of my head is how Morgan has mentioned that the character Samantha was NOT a liar in any way shape or form. If then, we put that character into a position of "needing" to lie for the sake of good, it would, I think, be a very interesting show.

Although the storyline might be awry, I firmly believe that good stories are born out of characters driving the storyline and the careful weaving thereof; not by moving characters about in a carefully structured plot landscape. This is where our craft and skill will come into play as we develop. The plot should be driven by the characters; not the other way around. Whatever the external circumstance is that initiates the character to do or not do something is important as we begin working with a solid structure.

If for instance, James Fleming, our Psychiatrist, in fact conceals a mental disorder (which might be why he became a psychiatrist) then this would be excellent material to work with structurally. If he and his group were heading to their next destination north and he sees (one of those that you see sometimes in the big cities wandering, talking to themselves) and it conjures a memory of his brother or cousin with the same illness, he might want to help him and the others might be repulsed and want to get the heck out of Dodge. Again, if James forces the issue and blows a fuse, it might cause the anarchists to hear them, steal their stolen supplies etc. So then in fact we've got character driven plot that is initiating the causal relationships.

Personally, I loved working with the snake aspect. Part of what drew me in however was not "the nameless snake that ate New York" idea, but the wise aspect associated with the serpent. To me it was much more than someone had mentioned: Just a guy with a speech impediment.

I'm going to wrap this up now, but I think where Shiva might get low marks for story structure, it gets high marks for characters and characters in potential.

Sandra

When it comes to an outline, why not construct the game the way one might construct a script from the ground up. You have a great start in that you start with characters and volunteers to write. The next step for the writing group would be to step out the storyline. It wouldn't be one person, it would be a group effort as well and we would fight and disagree and finally come to a mostly concensus. There wouldn't have to be anyone enforcing the storyline because everyone involved would have agreed to play by the rules and write to that story while developing it.

Besides I would be against a full outline. Only the major plot points would need the stepping out. That way we have a skeletal structure while maintaining the freedom to develop it. For instance, we might know that someone needs to have the mcguffin by the end of act three, but the structure doesn't say who or why...only that it happens at that point in the story.

As for Shiva's potential, I am still for its development as a mini-series. That form will allow a myriad of characters and yet allow it to have a beginning, middle, and end where a full series favors an open-ended structure.

I'm willing to go with plot points but we would have to have one point for each turn.  I think something like this. (I'm not certain where I picked this up from but I liked it - specifically because it could be adapted to our uses, so I hung onto it).  25 turns. The plot points would need to be built by the group - turn after turn - with people taking turns on each point until most everyone is satisfied.  

I know some people are going to freak out at this approach, so everyone else please chime in about this.

ACT ONE
THE CONDITION OF THE ACTION
SETUP: CHARACTER WITH A PROBLEM (2 turns)
Establishes who the main character is and what the character's internal and external problems are. Also establishes the setting, period, tone, style and point of view of the story.

CATALYST (1 turn)
The SETUP: CHARACTER WITH A PROBLEM sequence usually contains the CATALYST which is the first hint of what the main dilemma will be because of the first, usually innocuous, moment where the plot begins to act on the character and launch the story.

NEW OPPORTUNITY / PREDICAMENT (1 turn)
Establishes a new problem which steers the story in a new direction and hints at bigger obstacles to come as the hero struggles to deal with the new disruption to his life.

INCITING INCIDENT (1 turn)
The NEW OPPORTUNITY / PREDICAMENT sequence usually contains the INCITING INCIDENT which is the first significant event where the plot overtly acts on the character and completely disrupts and alters the characters life. The Inciting Incident contains the roots of the cause of the action.


CAUSE OF THE ACTION

TURNING POINT: POINT OF ATTACK (3 turns)
An event caused by the antagonist that forces the character to take new action to "attack the problem" that defines the hero's general wants/needs into a specific goal and sends the story in a new direction. The CAUSE OF THE ACTION is an action taken by the hero which raises the Major Dramatic Question that is the primary concern of the plot.


ACT TWO

THE ACTION
PROGRESS: NEW HIGHER OBSTACLES (4 turns)
The hero makes progress toward their goal. There are new conflicts and higher obstacles introduced that places the character's success in doubt.

Each beat puts the MDQ in doubt

MOVING FORWARD METAPHOR: ARC DEFINITION (1 turn)
The PROGRESS: NEW HIGHER OBSTACLES sequence usually contains the MOVING FORWARD METAPHOR: ARC DEFINITION which contains overtones about the character's growth and hints at the outcome of the story.


POINT OF NO RETURN: LOW POINT (1 turn)
The POINT OF NO RETURN is a point in the story where the hero is confronted with an obstacle that is so large that if he continues he will risk so much that he will be unable to go back to the relative safety he was in before and must follow his new path to its inevitable conclusion. It's a point of decision and action that defines a very low point in the story where any hope of success for the character seems small and the answer to the MDQ is in doubt.

POST POINT OF NO RETURN (1 turn)
A beat immediately after the POINT OF NO RETURN that doesn't necessarily advance the story but it does illustrate the character's change because of the PONR. This beat is usually an up beat to contrast the down beat of the PONR.


COMPLICATIONS, HIGHER STAKES AND SUBPLOTS (2 turns)
The goal is harder to achieve than the hero thought and is tested more than he ever expected. Subplots develop and further complicate the hero's path to his goals and raise the stakes.


CULMINATION TOWARD THE MAIN PLOT (2 turns)
The conclusion of one dramatic tension and the start of a new one. The hero moves inexorably closer to his goal and discovers new info and better understanding of the nature of the opposition before him. The antagonist is aware of the hero's actions and takes actions to prevent the hero from learning the truth about the conflict and obstacles the hero is trying to overcome. The focus shifts from subplots to the main plot.


APPARENT DEFEAT (1 turn)
The greatest set back of the story for the hero. It appears as if achieving the goal is impossible but the hero has no choice but to try because he will have an even worse fate should he abandon his quest now. The hero's internal needs/flaws are confronted defining the hero's arc.

ACT THREE

RESULT OF THE ACTION
NEW PLAN (3 turns)
The hero discovers a hidden truth about the nature of the obstacle and conflict to his goal which sets a new path for the hero that will lead to an inevitable conclusion and answer the MDQ.

FINAL CONFRONTATION (1 turn)
The hero has reached the end of the path that has brought him to his goal. The only thing standing in his way is one obstacle that is greater and unlike any faced before. In this moment the hero must finally confront his internal flaws/needs and be changed in order to achieve the external goals and finally answer the MDQ.

DENOUEMENT AND RESOLUTION (1 turn)
The final outcome of the story and how the hero's life has been changed because of it.

Sorry for not chiming in yesterday, but I had to steal some flowers from a neighbor for my girlfriend, but then got caught digging up the damn things.  It was a mess from there.

I am very against Cornetto's proposed "structure", but then again, I'm apposed to all forms of forced structure.

I thought the exercise was fun, and well done...especially by Cornetto.  I know it wasn't easy by any means and I also know that many writers did not stick to the rules, and other writers didn't invest the time or effort necessary to make a cohesive piece when it was all said and done.

I truly believe that in order to fully utilize the creativity from an international cast of writers, structure needs to be limited.  I also believe that posts not meeting the requirements, or following the rules, should be immediately rewritten, etc.  No reason to have posts in there that cleary contain major issues and mistakes.

I think what happened here is that we quickly got off track from what Cornetto originally envisioned.  Now, I'm not saying that's such a bad thing, but the tone changed from post to post, and once something is introduced, it's difficult not to aknowledge it from there on out.

I'm actually quite happy with the whole thing and think that overall, it was pretty well done and an interesting experience.

I'm completely for implementing structural "rules" to the best of my ability. I think that this is a positive step in the right direction and not a negative thing as some might be inclined to believe.

The outlining/brainstorming phase could be a powerful tool for us to implement all of our "brilliance"   in a cohesive manner.

Sandra