Long before I wanted to be a game designer, I wanted to be a writer. And, in fact, was a writer. I wrote a number of short stories, and got mostly positive feedback for them. I know my strength as a writer lies in my characters and settings, and I imagine that once I make the transition to visual media, namely video games, this will remain the same. I've always written deep, convincing characters who were developed enough (even in stories as short as a couple pages) that the reader could understand their actions and begin to see how they worked. My settings, similarly, have always been detailed and have held my readers' interest quite well. The only universal comments from my readers have been "I'd like to know more about this setting," "I want to see this setting" and "are you going to do more in this setting?" And settings are the fun part for me. That's most of the reason I wanted to do game design, in particular, as making my settings interactive is the best way for me to let people explore them, and all the people I've had read more than one story said I should do some form of visual media because my settings would be interesting to see.

But that's where my strengths end. I'm decent enough at writing stories, it's not my strongest suit but I am still competent. The rest falls flat. My sense of humour is strange and grim to the point of turning a few softer readers off and prompting comments on me being "sick." When I write a story with a moral message (I used to do this a lot) it's either too heavy handed and turns the reader off the discussion I'm trying to turn them on to or it's too subtle and is missed entirely. My social, political, cultural and legal commentary falls under this as well. Often, rather than writing to make a statement I write to raise a question, but this brings a new issue as the question I am trying to raise tends to sail over my reader's head. While a lot of this should get easier in a visual media, I'm not entirely sure and I KNOW I need to work on these things. Well, not the humour part. My sense of humour is not going to change.

So I'd like to ask writers that are strong in these areas for advice, especially when it comes to writing in games. In particular, on delivering moral messages as well as social, political and legal commentary with the right level of subtlety and making complex philosophical points comprehensible to those who are not as erudite as I am. I'd like to be able to lead them to a question, usually about a viewpoint that is commonly held and I disagree with, and give it to them in a context that will provide them a counterbalance for their likely bias and hopefully get them to think about it rather than immediately throwing it away. I can't let them know what I'm doing or they'll stick their head in the sand but I can't let them miss the question entirely or it might as well not have been brought up in the first place. I've never been able to get the balance right, and if any of you have I would like to hear from you on the matter.

But that's where my strengths end. I'm decent enough at writing stories, it's not my strongest suit but I am still competent. The rest falls flat. My sense of humour is strange and grim to the point of turning a few softer readers off and prompting comments on me being "sick." When I write a story with a moral message (I used to do this a lot) it's either too heavy handed and turns the reader off the discussion I'm trying to turn them on to or it's too subtle and is missed entirely. My social, political, cultural and legal commentary falls under this as well. Often, rather than writing to make a statement I write to raise a question, but this brings a new issue as the question I am trying to raise tends to sail over my reader's head. While a lot of this should get easier in a visual media, I'm not entirely sure and I KNOW I need to work on these things. Well, not the humour part. My sense of humour is not going to change.
So I'd like to ask writers that are strong in these areas for advice, especially when it comes to writing in games. In particular, on delivering moral messages as well as social, political and legal commentary with the right level of subtlety and making complex philosophical points comprehensible to those who are not as erudite as I am. I'd like to be able to lead them to a question, usually about a viewpoint that is commonly held and I disagree with, and give it to them in a context that will provide them a counterbalance for their likely bias and hopefully get them to think about it rather than immediately throwing it away. I can't let them know what I'm doing or they'll stick their head in the sand but I can't let them miss the question entirely or it might as well not have been brought up in the first place. I've never been able to get the balance right

Simply knowing where your weaknesses lie is a tremendous strength. You may be already well on the path to fixing the problem you describe. It could help helpers help you if you mentioned your age in general terms, putting your situation into a setting, as it were.

I think you should not dumb down your writing. Imagine your writers are as erudite as you are - when I'm reading something above my head, part of the joy is challenging myself to rise up to the writer's level.

Odd how I can get two replies and NO notification Email, despite being subscribed. I thought it wasn't being answered.

To FLeBlanc:

What's the point of a story, if you can pull nothing out of it? I'm not a moral crusader, in fact the very idea of moral crusading inspires a deep, seething hate within me. I'm a philosopher, and the purpose of any discussion of morals, politics and culture serves that end. In particular, the morality of law comes up a lot in my stories, but despite my best efforts I can't seem to have the discussion come up through the story itself and I don't really want to have a big debate scene to serve that purpose. When I try the former, it flies over the reader's head. When I try the latter, I just can't get it into a condition I feel does both sides justice and doesn't break the story. As I said, I'm not a moral crusader and presenting only my viewpoint, or presenting a caricature of the opposing viewpoint, just feels wrong to me.

Entertainment. Believe it or not, most people don't read to be lectured to or learn deep moral lessons. They read because they want to find out what happens next, and if the guy is going to get the girl. There are parallels between traditional narrative structure and actual human experience going deep into our evolutionary history, so narratives that can make use of those parallels tug at our heart strings and trigger an instinctive response. We like to hear about Jim defeating the Big Bad Dragon because it reminds us of our own triumphs.Whatever particular drum it is that you want to bang, if banging that drum is the sole purpose of your story people are going to sense it. They'll put your book down and say "It's okay, but it's just not grabbing me." Because it's the story that is the hook, the story that is going to reach out and grab people and make them want to stick around. If all you are doing is plastering a vaguely story-like veneer on top of a discussion of politics, you are going to drive people away.

Even the idiotic, overplayed story conventions you're talking about in order to say a story doesn't need a message are messages. "The guy getting the girl" and "Jim defeating the Big Bad Dragon" are both supposed to send messages that one can triumph when it seems unlikely for them to do so. Without a message, a story cannot entertain. With a good, well played message you need nothing else. If you took away all the fancy special effects, the unrealistic Hollywood firefights and grim humour, would The Dark Knight still be an interesting film? Yes. The film uses the story of Batman and the Joker to discuss human nature. The fancy special effects are just there so people will be drawn in to watch it, the Hollywood bullshit posing as a firefight is just part of the story in use (and a good example of the director's lack of knowledge on the subject) and the grim humour is just to add personality to the characters so people pay attention to what they are saying. This is a story that exists for no other purpose than to raise a philosophical point, and it's still a fun film that people who can count their functioning brain cells on their fingers can enjoy.

On a slightly different note, the same things can all be said about V for Vendetta. However, in this case, the film has an entirely different philosophy and the director isn't gifted with an established setting, as good of a cast, an enormous budget or a competent supporting actress. This film is not funny, or flashy, or exhilarating. It's actually pretty goddamn depressing until the end. But it sends a stronger message, stays with the viewer better, and in the end is a more memorable film because of that. The Dark Knight is a film that you will remember for a long time. V for Vendetta is a film that you will never forget so long as you live.

Finally, look at James Cameron's Avatar. This movie has everything that makes a movie "fun." It's a bright, colourful film with a romance story, huge special effects, and a lot of action. It's also based on a shitty message that comes off as hollow and preachy. Anybody who looks at it as more than a delivery system for pretty pyrotechnics or offscreen blue alien sex fantasies is going to be put off by what an incredibly preachy bastard James Cameron is. In five years, nobody will be watching it anymore, the discs will just collect dust. In twenty, nobody will remember it even existed.

What's my point? The message of a work, and how it is delivered, will determine not only the user's interest in the story, but how long they remember the work itself. While games are interactive and can get off with mechanics alone (another thing I'm good at) the story of the game with no message WILL be forgotten even if the gameplay isn't. And if you want your game to be anything more than a toy, that's a problem.

Well, if it doesn't come up in the story itself, then it probably doesn't fit that story. The worst thing you can do, in my opinion, is to try to force and wrench your story around to fit your philosophical point. That, to me, represents a form of intellectual dishonesty, and as Stephen King (one of my favorites) is always emphasizing, you have to be honest about what you are saying. People just know when you're bullshitting them. You can tell a lie (that's what fiction is, after all) but you need to be honest in the way you say it.

It's not that it doesn't come up in the story. It comes up all the time. It just gets missed by all my readers, because apparently the reader just won't notice something that isn't directly said.

You will find whilst there can be some overlapping skills...there is a great deal of difference in these two roles.

Given my particular skill set, which includes a great deal of sense for gameplay balance that has helped me craft a number of tabletop systems, I would likely be better as a game designer than a writer. I was never truly happy as a writer because the worlds I created just weren't communicated properly through words alone. I always felt they needed to be seen, and I had a hard time getting across the more visual aspects of events as they played out in my head. A visual, and especially interactive, medium will allow for much more exploration of the settings and characters I like to write than a book.

From the perspective of your writing it is difficult without seeing examples of it to truly make any appropriately relevant comments with regards to your style, delivery etc. All I can do is provide some generic advice.

Given that I've had a hard time keeping my work recently, usually throwing it away because a change I make in the setting has made it non-canon, it's hard to find a good example now. I don't think any story I've ever written has remained canon for more than a year, and I throw out non-canon work so I don't get confused.

Were any of these stories published? As a writer if your stories are only seen by your initial surrounds i.e. school, family and friends you may not be receiving appropriate advice that will strengthen your writing rather what you effectively receive is feedback from a limited population pool that most likely falls into the same socio-economic and geographical pool and thus will have similar responses for the most part which may or may not be valid for a much larger audience....for example the work's of Jules Verne may not be to many people's tastes but in the larger population pool he is considered a great writer by many. If you haven't been, you should be dispatching your short stories off to the various magazines, competitions, editors in order to start garnering feedback as well establishing a portfolio for yourself (just take into account that rejection does not automatically imply a poorly crafted story). Do you belong to any writing organisations in your area/region/country/internet that affords you access to others who write, who have the advantage of also providing feedback as well creating the beginnings of a network of contacts that will serve you in a future career associated with writing.

Reviewers have included:

1. Yes, friends and family. They're convenient.

2. Other writers I've met on the internet.

3. Random internet blokes with no writing background.

4. English teachers, as I've been writing since middle school.

Of these, a family member proved the most valuable. She gave detailed and meaningful feedback in a way neither the friends nor random internet blokes nor other family members were, and she wasn't as transient as the other writers or English teachers. Unfortunately, none of the work she's read is still canon. (Rather sad, actually. It hasn't even been that long, and all of those stories are excised from the setting. I really need to find a version I like and stop changing it so damned much.)

If you are writing for games a good example of a typical situation you might face is that shown by Project Divine Thread, in this case you have no control over the initial ideas, the gameplay, the environment rather you are given the task of weaving all of these elements together to provide a plotline that works within the boundaries they have already established. Elements such as where the protagonist finds that they are a child of one of the gods is probably negotiable but learning to work with other people's ideas and having the skill to push for modifications to some of their thoughts is a tricksome process, at times requiring you to have the courage to speak up but also the wisdom to step back when our suggestion gets shot down in flames.

I'm the kind of person who prefers to have at least a vague outline of everything ready before anybody starts working. I've been on modding teams before, I know how this can happen at least in that context. Back in my pre and early teens I worked with a modding team that had a tendency to just keep adding more... and more... and more... until eventually we just couldn't get all the features (working features, mind you) to function properly together (my best efforts were in vain, as the moment it was all balanced they'd add something new) and the whole project fell apart. While with them, I was once in charge of writing a plot for a series of Halo: Custom Edition story maps, but every time I'd get a good draft I could run with the artist would make something new that just had to be added in or just had to have plot significance. (Nothing against the team, I wish I still knew them. But two of them died, then I moved and lost contact with the remainder.)

Maria: "Hey Jeremy, check it out! I made a seraph! We need a mission around them!"

Myself: "But there's no point in the plot where our characters will have access to spacecraft, or even high-altitude aircraft. When could they possibly come up against seraphs?"

Maria: "I don't know, just throw something in. You're the writer."

Myself: "..."

I really can't comment about your zephyr-like versus chainsaw to the head delivery of morality/commentary issues in your writing as I would need to read some of your work in order to make a judgement for myself as to how I perceive your delivery.

Tom was very right in pointing out that recognising your weaknesses in writing is a very good thing...my only caution to this is make sure what you have identified as weaknesses are in actual fact so. Hence the need to ensure feedback you receive is from a variety of sources. With specific reference to your humour in writing, you can not make everyone laugh...it just doesn't happen. There will always be some people who find humour in some things that other will define as sick...don't take it to heart and don't consider reader who can't accept your humour as being soft...just simply recognise that the type of story you are writing is the type of story they would never buy anyway i.e. not your target audience..:learning to write humour outside of your normal comfort zone is simply another skill and can be developed if you wish to.

My works are mostly serious, but the humour is either used to help define the setting or character, or else to help keep interest in the slower parts of a story. I think it's actually a bit more important because it acts to reinforce drama and isn't just for its own sake.

From a game designer's perspective. This is where you go through the game design forum as it doesn't directly relate to the writing forum except in the smallest part.

?

If you want to talk about moral, cultural, social, etc. stuff in a way that's interesting and non-preachy, I suggest building it into the worldbuilding, not directly into the characters. Have it be something the main character is clueless about or uninvolved with at first, and they discover it during the course of the story. (Though, I do not write short stories, only long ones, so you may have to reinterpret the concept a bit for short stories.) Then take a second character and give them good reasons to feel the opposite of the message you ultimately want to get across. You definitely don't ever want to have every character in agreement about an issue. Only at the climax of the story should the thematic argument between/among these characters get narrowed down to a clear 'winning' point of view.

As far as humor goes, do you like other people's humor? If so, it's something that can be studied, like a stand up comedian studies how to be good at that.