Worn out by webcomics.

[Joel Fagin]

I always think the most interesting heroes are those who were completely ordinary and utterly ill-equipped at the start. Put the gun in the hands of an accountant, I say, and let him save the world.

- Joel Fagin

"When Rincewind challenged the greatest wizard the Disk has ever known with nothing more than a half-brick in a sock, he's being more heroic than a dozen Conans put together - because it isn't what he's cut out for." - Terry Pratchett

[Hallonpress]

Personally, if characters started out dealing with reality before being thrust into fantastic situations, I'd probably like them a lot better, and be rootimg for them more than I usually do. And, no, people in fantasy settings should not be exempt from the trappings of reality. Even in Fantasia, people should gotta eat, and pay taxes, suffer the ravages of age, and deal with asshole neighbors. Why gloss over those parts? They only serve to make the world more inhabitable, by giving the reader recognizeable elements in a totally strange place.

Amen. This is exactly my opinion, and exactly what we're trying to do in What Birds Know. You should read it if you haven't, heh. Yeah, enough of the whoring, now... Ahem.

The most important thing, I think, is the characters, not epic storylines. If you define the characters well enough and make people care for them, then it matters less what kind of adventure they're on, it's going to be good either way. Starting out a webcomic with an epic battle, like for example <a href="http://www.fantasyrealmsonline.com">Fantasy Realms</a> does, has the downside that, even if it looks cool and is really intense, you don't know anything about either the heroes or villains, and thus don't really care who wins. At least, that's what I felt.

We tried to do the opposite, which made for a very slow start, but I think is more rewarding in the long run.

[Joel Fagin]

We tried to do the opposite, which made for a very slow start, but I think is more rewarding in the long run.

The trouble with webcomics, though, is that the reader has no personal investment in reading them. If you buy a book, you'll give it every chance to be interesting because you've already bought it (and because you can read at your own pace). Webcomics have to grab you.

Not that I can really comment on your comic. It's in my "to read" list but I haven't got around to it yet...

- Joel Fagin

[Ataraxia]

The most important thing, I think, is the characters, not epic storylines. If you define the characters well enough and make people care for them, then it matters less what kind of adventure they're on, it's going to be good either way. Starting out a webcomic with an epic battle, like for example <a href="http://www.fantasyrealmsonline.com">Fantasy Realms</a> does, has the downside that, even if it looks cool and is really intense, you don't know anything about either the heroes or villains, and thus don't really care who wins. At least, that's what I felt.

I agree. It's better to start with the characters, and then move on to the adventure. Doing things the other way around doesn't usually work... unless you can work a whole lot of character development into the action sequence itself.

[Joel Fagin]

*checks Fantasy Realms*

Ohhh... That comic. I remember reading that ages ago. That was the comic that first gave me an inkling why serious comics didn't work so well on the web compared to the gag ones, and why.

Okay, yes, that comic actually doesn't grab the reader at the outset. I gave up because of exactly that. It has a battle but you're right that there's no involvement with the characters. We're very clearly coming in at the end of a story instead of an action packed beginning, and that leaves us lost.

It is a really bad example of an interesting, reader-grabbing beginning, because it's not interesting and doesn't grab the reader. However, the basic technique is still sound. It's just poorly executed in this case.

It's a rule in short story writing - which, like comics, have to grab people fast - that the opening line and/or paragraph is all important. Not only does it need to grab the reader and drag his eyes to the end of the page, but it should also encapsulate something about the story. A good first paragraph can set the theme, feel, plot or main character's personality.

And the first comic, or few comics, should do the same.

Fantasy Realms does not. No feel, no theme, no personality, no plot. Just evil posturing and people fighting.

- Joel Fagin

[Hallonpress]

The trouble with webcomics, though, is that the reader has no personal investment in reading them. If you buy a book, you'll give it every chance to be interesting because you've already bought it (and because you can read at your own pace). Webcomics have to grab you.

True. A battle is quite a hook for new readers. And a hook is important. We used something similar in WBK, actually, as a small intro before introducing any of the characters, just to add some foreshadowing. The trouble I had with Fantasy Realms, and some other webcomics as well, was that it had all those cool looking characters already present on the first page, battling another cool villain-type. They looked so.. I don't know... Like you were already supposed to know them from the start, just because the authors did. I got the feeling that I would like them if I had the time to get to know them, but there was no time... I had to read the entire archive, and then go back and re-read the beginning, before I could see that scene as I was supposed to. Hard to explain.

Maybe it's just me.

EDIT: Oh, you answered before I had the time to finish writing! Yeah. What you said. Glad I'm not the only one who wasn't impressed with Fantasy Realms.

Though the art did impress me. And made me read the entire thing - twice. I guess there's a lesson to learn there too.

Oh, and... I'm glad WBK is on you "to read" list.

[The Neko]

I think that if you're going to attempt a serious/dramatic/action/meandering comic on the web, you really have to have strong art in order to pull people in during the slower moments. Otherwise, you'd have to rely on the writing at all times and that won't work during the times of calm.

[Keffria]

So true.

Anyway, what especially bothers me about that Fantasy Realms comic is not the fact that it lacks a good hook (though it does - the beginning is just a bunch of cool colourful stuff that happens), it's that within the space of that first chapter and a bit (which was where I stopped reading) it managed to draw in just about every cliché from Fantasy Manga for Dummies, including but not limited to:

(1) Ragtag band of children sets out to save the world (parents not present, possibly dead)
(2) Kid with cute animal sidekick
(3) Attractive, softspoken villain with enormous shoulder-pads and some kind of Past Trauma
(4) Party representing a variety of "classes" straight out of a JRPG (and in case I can't figure it out, the cast page tells me everyone's class)
(5) Inexplicably naked fairy who has no nipples or genitalia
(6) Freeze-frame silhouettes involving people running each other through with pointy objects
(7) Death-butterflies. The butterflies were what did me in, I think. It's especially bad because I don't care at all about anyone who dies because I don't know who they are.

Gawd, even the *name* is completely generic. -_-

The trouble I had with Fantasy Realms, and some other webcomics as well, was that it had all those cool looking characters already present on the first page, battling another cool villain-type. They looked so.. I don't know... Like you were already supposed to know them from the start, just because the authors did.

That's because if you've read any generic fantasy comic, you should already be familiar with the archetypes.

[Hallonpress]

Gawd, even the *name* is completely generic. -_-

I was going to say this, before you edited you post.

[Keffria]

Great minds...

[Bustertheclown]

I'm glad this is moving back toward the "how to deal with serious long-form comics" end of the discussion, because I've been ruminating on it for several days now, and want to talk about it. This saves me from making a different thread. However, I need sleep first.

The trouble with webcomics, though, is that the reader has no personal investment in reading them. If you buy a book, you'll give it every chance to be interesting because you've already bought it (and because you can read at your own pace). Webcomics have to grab you.

True. A battle is quite a hook for new readers. And a hook is important. We used something similar in WBK, actually, as a small intro before introducing any of the characters, just to add some foreshadowing. The trouble I had with Fantasy Realms, and some other webcomics as well, was that it had all those cool looking characters already present on the first page, battling another cool villain-type. They looked so.. I don't know... Like you were already supposed to know them from the start, just because the authors did. I got the feeling that I would like them if I had the time to get to know them, but there was no time... I had to read the entire archive, and then go back and re-read the beginning, before I could see that scene as I was supposed to. Hard to explain.

Maybe it's just me.

EDIT: Oh, you answered before I had the time to finish writing! Yeah. What you said. Glad I'm not the only one who wasn't impressed with Fantasy Realms.

Though the art did impress me. And made me read the entire thing - twice. I guess there's a lesson to learn there too.

Oh, and... I'm glad WBK is on you "to read" list.

I've definitely been meaning to start on What Birds Know. I'll probably read through it tomorrow. Good title, by the way.

I agree with the sentiments that a webcomic with a more sophisticated story has to hook you, and then really work to keep you interested in it. However, I don't think that it's true that a reader on the web is making less of an investment than a reader who may have bought a physical book. Yes, most comics on the web are delivered at no cost to the reader, and yes, purchasing a comic book from off the shelf means making a physical monetary investment in that particular book.

However, comic books are still a comparatively low cost item, with even the thickest and fanciest graphic novels rarely going over the $25-$35 threshold. Meanwhile, you don't have to wait to read in bulk. You can count on at least a minor arc to complete itself by the end of an issue. You don't have to worry about load times, screen resolutions, software compatibility, or connection issues. You can read as fast as you can turn a page. You can set it on your coffee table, and get around to reading it without worrying that the creator might come to your house and take it away from you, or hides it where you can't find it, before you can get to it. Most important to me, you don't have to wait anywhere from a day to an eternity to get to the next page. All of what I mentioned are investments in time, which are not made when a person instead makes an investment in money.

Certainly, anyone who has ever bought a terrible comic book that they can't get all the way through, knows that the average investment of three bucks is not enough to keep them reading crap, just because they paid for it. Certainly, they'll not be making an investment in the following issue.

Conversely, I think that webcomics are afforded a lot more leniancy when it comes to rough around the edges storytelling because a reader DOESN'T have to pay money to give it a shot. I'm the type of guy who'll spend hours in a comic shop, very slowly deliberating on what to drop five dollars on. On the web, I'll click to any ol' comic, as long as I have the time. Plus, how many readers here have come to a comic that wasn't so great at the beginning of its run, but they were willing to give it a try because they saw the possibility it might get better over time? I know I have. I mentioned 1/0 in another thread. When I first started reading it, I thought it was imaginative, but certainly not great. When I checked back with it a year later, it quickly grew to become one of my all-time favorite comic reads. Had I been forced to put money down on it, I never would have looked twice at it.

[Bustertheclown]

So true.

Anyway, what especially bothers me about that Fantasy Realms comic is not the fact that it lacks a good hook (though it does - the beginning is just a bunch of cool colourful stuff that happens), it's that within the space of that first chapter and a bit (which was where I stopped reading) it managed to draw in just about every cliché from Fantasy Manga for Dummies, including but not limited to:

(1) Ragtag band of children sets out to save the world (parents not present, possibly dead)
(2) Kid with cute animal sidekick
(3) Attractive, softspoken villain with enormous shoulder-pads and some kind of Past Trauma
(4) Party representing a variety of "classes" straight out of a JRPG (and in case I can't figure it out, the cast page tells me everyone's class)
(5) Inexplicably naked fairy who has no nipples or genitalia
(6) Freeze-frame silhouettes involving people running each other through with pointy objects
(7) Death-butterflies. The butterflies were what did me in, I think. It's especially bad because I don't care at all about anyone who dies because I don't know who they are.

Gawd, even the *name* is completely generic. -_-

The trouble I had with Fantasy Realms, and some other webcomics as well, was that it had all those cool looking characters already present on the first page, battling another cool villain-type. They looked so.. I don't know... Like you were already supposed to know them from the start, just because the authors did.

That's because if you've read any generic fantasy comic, you should already be familiar with the archetypes.

Not to start ragging on a comic I don't read, but the entire first chapter pretty much feels like it comes straight out of Record of Lodoss War or a Final Fantasy game to me. Still, it's a damn pretty comic, ain't it? Color me impressed by the competence of the artwork.

[Keffria]

Not to start ragging on a comic I don't read, but the entire first chapter pretty much feels like it comes straight out of Record of Lodoss War or a Final Fantasy game to me. Still, it's a damn pretty comic, ain't it? Color me impressed by the competence of the artwork.

Yeah, hence my comment on JRPGs. I don't get it -- in the world of console RPGs, even graphically impressive games are much-maligned if they don't have a decent story to back it all up. And yet, other forms of entertainment (e.g. fantasy comics) that borrow so much from them don't seem to take any hints.

Come to think of it, game developers don't seem to take hints, either. At least I don't find myself having to choose between all sorts of awesome games.

*edit* No, actually, I think I do get it -- it's that not everyone's looking for story. I mean, I don't want to sound condescending, but some people are happy with boring characters and storylines if it looks pretty (and in the case of RPGs, if it has a good battle system).

[Ataraxia]

I'm interested in the discussion of "serious long-form" comics, as well. After Voles of the Dusk ends later this month, my next script is an adventure story set in the GearHead universe. My previous attempts at doing this have been good candidates for How Not to Run a Webcomic.

In those first two, I did a lot of things that Joel Fagin could have warned me not to do, such as the long, meandering, and completely unnessecary opening of the first GH comic. The second GH comic opens with a fight scene; unlike the one in Fantasy Realms, the combatants this time around never get introduced. Also, it's not nearly so nicely drawn. My one excuse is that I did both of these stories after a multi-year gap of not comicking at all.

How will I do things better in the next story? First, the characters will be introduced before any action starts. When the action does start, it will be meaningful to the plot, not just random fighting for the sake of it. Ah, that's a good point- this time around there actually will be a plot; it won't just be a sequence of random pointless anecdotes like the first two.

I've done a lot more concept drawing for this one than I did for the first two. I'm worried that my drawing skills might not be up to the task. The artwork in adventure comics tends to be very crisp and polished; my artwork tends to be soft and lumpy. I'm hoping to use a more dramatic black and white style than was used previously; it won't be exactly like the style I used in "Voles of the Dusk", but will borrow from it somewhat. Later on I plan to start a new thread in the Techniques forum with samples.

Come to think of it, game developers don't seem to take hints, either. At least I don't find myself having to choose between all sorts of awesome games.

If you enjoy roguelikes, try GearHead- it has a random story generator. If you don't like the plot of the game the first time you play, just try it again!

[McDuffies]

I would like to point out that nothing was said of the other option I pointed out, that those which are not instances of truth were started because they were useful.

Alarm clock, for instance, is a good way to start a comic/saga/movie/ game because it symbolises a beginning. When you wake up, your day is beginning. It's an easy place to start without creating a lot of discord between what the reader knows and what is being shown. Similar to amnesia, it allows a gentle set of explenation that doesn't have to be half a page of dialogue--if done right.

The mad scientist, as a cliche comes from pulp novels, in which it was necessary for everything science to be Science fiction. While the pulps were not anything like good writing, the cliches used became overused because they were useful.

You need a cool gadget? Go to the scientist. You need a villian who can create monsters for the hero to fight? Mad scientist ala frankenstein is perfect. But how will we know his plan? We can't take up to many pages explaining it, as out pulp only costs like, five cents. Well, loet's have him explain it to the hero.

As for violent girls, they were introduced as a counter to the uber-sweet girl, and as such, worked well as a release from comic tension, and a break from reader expectation. However, like most things, when overused to no purpose it became a charicature of it's original purpose.

THe wise old men is an example of something that is based on truth--not literal truth, but we as a culture have until recently known that aall older people were wiser than we were, by virtue of having lived through more. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go back towards that a little bit.

I stand by my assertation, in spite of the eloquent case made by Mcduffies: Most, if not all cliches became cliches because they held elemnts of truth, or were good storytelling when created.

Well, back when they were created they weren't technically cliches, right? Cliches are created by writers who repeat them, not by the one who used them first.

I still claim that most of overuse of cliches comes from the fact that they're convenient for writers, which doesn't neccesarily mean for readers or for the story alltogether. Sure, a reader needs an element of reckognizability, of things he can grasp at once so he doesn't have to bother with them much - but they also have to have an element of challegge, something new, something they haven't seen before. Say you have a character-driven comic, and your main character is a cliche - then what do you exactly have?

Maybe I'll phrase it better on example of alarm clock: Ok. Alarm clock is convenient because it obviously symbolizes the beginning.
But in the same manner, brushing teeth, drinking first morning coffee, opening a window to get fresh air, symbolize new beginning. So is being waken up by radio, by tv, by a roommate, by loud noises from outside the window. They all pretty much straightforward symbolize the same thing as being woken up by alarm clock, they're just as much useful (to use your term).
Yet, in webcomics, it's always one the same: alarm clock. Every time, alarm clock.
Why not any of the mentioned above? Why isn't the beginning symbolized by different things more often? Well, the only reason I can think of is, it's easier for a writer to take over something that he's seen in other comic. Lazy writer.
What does it make for reader? If reader sees a symbol and connects it using his intelect, well that's what symbols are for. With cliches that are so overused such as alarm clock, it's not an intelect anymore, it's practically a pavlovian reflex. "Ooh, an alarm clock. He's late for school"

As for the truth part, I claim that cliches are simplifying the truth, making it ever less truth. Take old wise men: I know as much utterly stupid old people - or at least not any wiser than when they were 20. This cliche concentrates on those who are wise, but I can't say that that makes in contain a piece of truth, because it completely ignores the rest of truth. If all old people in comics are, due to abuse of cliche, wise, the "truth" that webcomics create is that all old people are wise. Taking just a part of truth, the one that is convenient for you, while disregarding bit picture, doesn't mean preserving the truth.

See, the main problem with cliches is, and I think this is the point, they aren't derived from real life, but from other stories. Manga artists who start their comics with alarm clock don't have in mind times when they were woken up by alarm clock - no, they have in mind all the times characters in comics they've read had been.
I do believe that writing should be truthful. Not as in, sticking to realistic subject, no fantasy, etc etc, but as in, writer has to have insight in human nature, in the way the world works; His characters, the way they react to situation, the odds of something happening, etc, have to be based on writer's experience from real life. If writer choses to take those experiences from other stories he's read, to grab them from the assortment of cliches, he choses to, inevitably, write pulp. Which can have it's redeeming qualities, but is usually not what writer was going for. If he uses to mix his experiences with overly simplified picture that cliches have, he may end up with disaster just as well.

It also occurs to me (because I once had this argument with a freind) that the cliche of all fantasy heros being a prince or a noble has a major basis in truth.
In a feudal system, the only people who have time to learn swordcraft, let alone the money to be properly outfitted, are the nobles and levees of nobles. From those two groups, only the nobles have the freedom to set off on wild quests at a whim.

Well, not really, there were common knights too, depending on which part of the world you speak of. Common knights could get high to the rank of noble knights if they've proven themselves, and in such cases they were even more respected, specially by common people who say them as "one of ours". It all depends on the country.
But the whole concept of "quest" is something that's a product of modern times. Princes, nobles, nor any other kind of knights, never went to wild quests on a whim. I assume that idea of "quest" somehow grew out of crusades, which were basically the greatest occasion when knights went so far away from their native country. Of course, crusades weren't at all noble quests, their "economic" purpose was very viable.
And then they weren't so heroic anyways. Most of them were basically mercenaties.

The most important thing, I think, is the characters, not epic storylines. If you define the characters well enough and make people care for them, then it matters less what kind of adventure they're on, it's going to be good either way. Starting out a webcomic with an epic battle, like for example Fantasy Realms does, has the downside that, even if it looks cool and is really intense, you don't know anything about either the heroes or villains, and thus don't really care who wins. At least, that's what I felt.

Yeah, reader usually stays to see what'll happen to characters he grew to like and indentify with.

[Dutch!]

All this talk of great big adventures to hook you in...

The first adventure I feature is simply getting off the school bus...how's that for mundane reality?

[Dracomax]

Eh, I'm still working on the first adventure for my comic--getting meat out of the freezer. I figure I can make it last at least another 3 or 4 strips without getting ridiculous.

Of course, I figure anything can be a grand epic storyline if it's done right, and as I am aiming for generally amusing rather than gag a day, that workks fine. It also give me a chance to show how everything gets blown out of proportion by the protagonist, or something.

[McDuffies]

I remembered another thing that grates me. It's that so many comics try to advertise with sex, though most of them aren't about sex, and are actually rather benign.
Suppose you have one female character in entire comic, and your comic isn't sexual in nature, but you dress that character into revealing clothes (even though she doesn't wear them in the comic) and but her on all banners and everywhere.
What irritates me even more is when artists actually realise how lame that is, so they try to do it tongue-in-cheek, overblowing, yelling things like "HEY WE GOT HOT CHICKS IN THIS COMIC" from banners and blurbs. It has the same effect of characters in a comic complaining about how the comic sucks: If you know it's bad, then don't do it!

[Noise Monkey]

Bait & Switch, McDuff. Bait & Switch.

[Jim North]

All this talk of great big adventures to hook you in...

The first adventure I feature is simply getting off the school bus...how's that for mundane reality?

That can be pretty dang dangerous, depending on what school you go to.