The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

[Habibi359]

Ah, a new series with new possibilities. Perhaps this time I'll succeed at least in one challenge.

And if not, it's still fun to even try.

[Terminal]

Both the Final Hazard as well as the First Labour series two will begin on February the 1st.

[PlatinumSkink]

Haha. Going at this again, huh. Oooooh, that makes me want to try taking them both on at once. ... That's likely a bad idea. XD

[Terminal]

Final Hazard will be up shortly.

[Terminal]

The Final Hazard OOC has been posted. If you have questions about it, post them there, not here.

[shylarah]

@Terminal for the new round of TTL -- not the Final Hazard, but the First Labor -- I wished clarification of a point. How exactly do you determine what is trite? Usually that means overused. I do recall that you didn't like how I handled the matter of a character beating me, but I wouldn't think a character manifesting their own will and gaining the ability to function as a writer's block because of that will to be something often used, even if the idea of a character disagreeing with the author has been used. *tilt head* Will triteness disqualify an entry entirely? Because I'm not sure how stale an idea I've got , since invulnerable doesn't preclude self-destructing, nor does it rule out the idea of very specific weaknesses, given that many characters are presented as invulnerable with one or two glaring flaws. Take Superman. Or, for a more suitable example given the way you present these Labors, how about Achilles? =P

[Terminal]

@Terminal for the new round of TTL -- not the Final Hazard, but the First Labor -- I wished clarification of a point. How exactly do you determine what is trite? Usually that means overused. I do recall that you didn't like how I handled the matter of a character beating me, but I wouldn't think a character manifesting their own will and gaining the ability to function as a writer's block because of that will to be something often used, even if the idea of a character disagreeing with the author has been used. *tilt head* Will triteness disqualify an entry entirely? Because I'm not sure how stale an idea I've got , since invulnerable doesn't preclude self-destructing, nor does it rule out the idea of very specific weaknesses, given that many characters are presented as invulnerable with one or two glaring flaws. Take Superman. Or, for a more suitable example given the way you present these Labors, how about Achilles? =P

@shylarah

Here I was merely referring to how subverting the death of one's characters is, in and of itself, a trite and thoroughly played-out aspect of fiction that I am not looking forward to seeing in your entries. Subversion of the need for their death, in a general sense, is trite - regardless of how doubtlessly clever the accompanying excuse might be. As indicated in the clarification though, I would merely be unamused, and I did say I would not be as strict as I was in the original First Labour. I would be unlikely to disqualify an entry just because you revived the character, or said they were playing dead, or had it so the afterlife was already the focus of the setting anyway, etcetera.

[shylarah]

...Actually, making it the afterlife is quite clever, and provided the character stopped being able to function in that setting, I wouldn't consider that trite at all. Be that through a more thorough death, a cessation of existence, or something else...*thoughtful*

[Blitz]

Interesting new challenge. If Christianity wasn't a thing I would've totally done the Passion. Oh well.

EDIT: My brain just hatched an interesting idea. Maybe too interesting. Like, it may get my entry failed. Hmmm.

[shylarah]

@Blitz ERPS. I'm a derp and can't keep track of similarly titled threads.

[pugbutter]

5. Send your entry to @Terminal by February 12th.

Meaning the midnight which leads into Feb. 12, or the midnight which ends Feb. 12?

[Terminal]

<Snipped quote>

Meaning the midnight which leads into Feb. 12, or the midnight which ends Feb. 12?

@pugbutter

Which ends.

[JaceBeleren]

Found something on the internet which could make an interesting Labour. It's called the Kaliedoscope Challenge: it requires you to change characters each paragraph, and the same character cannot be used twice (for longer entries, no more than once per chapter). Obviously the any length rule may need to be changed for this kind of Labour to make it a challenge, but otherwise the entries would have to be pretty creative. Let me know what you think.

[RomanAria]

@JaceBeleren Oooooh. I like the idea. It is perhaps ill-suited to the twelve labours (one will note that traditionally Terminal tries to formulate Labours that are creatively or psychologically taxing on the writers, but not by restrictions on the form the writing must take - rather by the nature of the required story) but it is nonetheless a creative idea. Unless @Terminal wants to take it I'm going to conscript it for RPGC somewhere down the line.

[Terminal]

@JaceBeleren Oooooh. I like the idea. It is perhaps ill-suited to the twelve labours (one will note that traditionally Terminal tries to formulate Labours that are creatively or psychologically taxing on the writers, but not by restrictions on the form the writing must take - rather by the nature of the required story) but it is nonetheless a creative idea. Unless @Terminal wants to take it I'm going to conscript it for RPGC somewhere down the line.

@RomanAria

Take it away . I already had the next eleven Labours planned, so you have a need/desire to use it that I do not.

[shylarah]

@RomanAria WAIT ARE YOU KILLING WHO I THINK YOU MIGHT BE KILLING?! Wait no, you can't be, they have to be new. Um. Well.

Wait a second, @mdk seems to intend to kill someone not-new off as well? I'm confused. Did I miss or misunderstand something?

@Terminal, you said that every character in the story must be entirely new, correct? I mean, it will be particularly difficult, given that making minor characters when similar minor characters with similar purposes already exist is a real pain, and leads to blurred edges, but certainly the one (or more) that die(s) must be entirely new. Must every single mention of anyone be entirely new too? What about setting? I came up with an idea that fits into a story already in progress, and have been working on it, but I saw the stuff here and after reading the directions again it sounds like I can't use her because her story would involve other characters that do already exist, as well as a few that are half made and waiting to be finished, not to mention a world that is not only well developed but also inspired if not created by a writing buddy. It sounds to me like using that world and those other characters to detail the story of the new one would disqualify my entry. Unless somehow I managed to tell it without ever using any of them...which would be quite a trick.

Actually, I guess the setting could be preexisting because otherwise any fandom work would be automatically disqualified, as would anything where you have to credit someone else (unless they helped with this entry specifically). But the issue of any characters outside of the focus one does remain.

Additionally, I have a question about death. What do you consider death? No longer being alive, complete destruction, or no longer being able to have a deliberate impact on the world? You stated that dying but then skipping permanent removal would be trite, and I can agree with this. But what about the other way round? For example, if there is a creature who dies but is reborn -- in this case, a phoenix -- dying isn't so much of an issue. However, if one were to put her in a state where she is not really alive but not truly dead, and thus unable to burn to ash and respawn, I would consider that a death. While the body might remain, it would be an empty shell, and given that I've always felt death in the OOC sense to be a matter of consciousness and not form, I believe this qualifies. For example, someone who dies IC but then lingers on as a ghost is not dead-dead, but someone who is braindead or in a permanent coma is, if Word of God says there will be no recovery. Though I might make an exception if a literal act of an IC god might bring them back...because that /has/ happened before, but that's not relevant here.

In fact, I'd feel the phoenix was the precise opposite of a technical death without lasting consequences -- since it's all the lasting consequences and a removal of her as a player in the story, but technically lacks full death. Given, however, that I don't always see things as others do, and since I've come at things from an entirely opposite perspective from your own in the past, I want to be sure before investing any more effort in her story for the moment. Even though I now desperately want to tell it, and am definitely going to in the near future even if not for this.

[shylarah]

@JaceBeleren I like this idea!

@RomanAria I like the idea of challenging manner of creativity for the RPGCs, to contrast the TTL method of challenging us in a more psychological manner. And if you want to brainstorm ideas for future things, hit me up because I think I have a few hopping around.

[Terminal]

@Terminal, you said that every character in the story must be entirely new, correct?

@shylarah

Yes.

Must every single mention of anyone be entirely new too? What about setting?

@shylarah

No.

It sounds to me like using that world and those other characters to detail the story of the new one would disqualify my entry.

@shylarah

Characters yes it would. Setting no it would not.

Actually, I guess the setting could be preexisting because otherwise any fandom work would be automatically disqualified, as would anything where you have to credit someone else (unless they helped with this entry specifically).

@shylarah

No. According to the original challenge rules, use of preexisting or 'fandom' settings is permitted as long as you credit the original author. This challenge makes no mention whatsoever of any rule precluding the use of preexisting settings.

Additionally, I have a question about death. What do you consider death?

@shylarah

Dying.

Additionally, I have a question about death. What do you consider death? No longer being alive, complete destruction, or no longer being able to have a deliberate impact on the world? You stated that dying but then skipping permanent removal would be trite, and I can agree with this. But what about the other way round? For example, if there is a creature who dies but is reborn -- in this case, a phoenix -- dying isn't so much of an issue. However, if one were to put her in a state where she is not really alive but not truly dead, and thus unable to burn to ash and respawn, I would consider that a death. While the body might remain, it would be an empty shell, and given that I've always felt death in the OOC sense to be a matter of consciousness and not form, I believe this qualifies. For example, someone who dies IC but then lingers on as a ghost is not dead-dead, but someone who is braindead or in a permanent coma is, if Word of God says there will be no recovery. Though I might make an exception if a literal act of an IC god might bring them back...because that /has/ happened before, but that's not relevant here.

In fact, I'd feel the phoenix was the precise opposite of a technical death without lasting consequences -- since it's all the lasting consequences and a removal of her as a player in the story, but technically lacks full death. Given, however, that I don't always see things as others do, and since I've come at things from an entirely opposite perspective from your own in the past, I want to be sure before investing any more effort in her story for the moment. Even though I now desperately want to tell it, and am definitely going to in the near future even if not for this.

@shylarah

Here I was merely referring to how subverting the death of one's characters is, in and of itself, a trite and thoroughly played-out aspect of fiction that I am not looking forward to seeing in your entries. Subversion of the need for their death, in a general sense, is trite - regardless of how doubtlessly clever the accompanying excuse might be. As indicated in the clarification though, I would merely be unamused, and I did say I would not be as strict as I was in the original First Labour. I would be unlikely to disqualify an entry just because you revived the character, or said they were playing dead, or had it so the afterlife was already the focus of the setting anyway, etcetera.

Terminal Eleven Posts Ago

[shylarah]

@Terminal Hmm, I /might/ still be able to pull this off. it would predate the current setting by multiple millenia, so just no epilogue...*mumbling*

I did very much remember the post you just quoted. However, while reviving, focusing on the afterlife, and so on would be examples of dying but not having a lasting effect, I'm asking about the exact opposite. I asked if death in every way save the precise literal definition would align with your definition. I do remember an entry or two a while back that failed because they met the spirit but failed on a technicality.

[RomanAria]

@shylarah Shy the post you're speaking of was made in reply to trial one of ttl 1. I'm not entering this time around. I'd assume that unless something I don't know about has changed I'm still judging.