How do you feel about Chekhov's gun?

[Arturus Caeldhon]

Do you feel that Chekhov's gun ought to apply to roleplaying games? Why or why not?

[Rynjin]

Why shouldn't it? It's a storytelling trope, and most campaigns tell a story.

[KutuluKultist]

Yeah, that Dragon from the opening scene? That better be the boss of the fifth adventure...

[thejeff]

Well, you've got less control over where the story goes in RPGs than in fiction, unless you're going for full on railroading. It's quite possible that Chekhov's gun may be attached to a plot the GM had in mind, but the players never picked up on. Or it may be a red herring.

Plus, in an RPG, the audience are the players. There are few ways of bringing something to the audience's attention without bringing it to the character's. That gun, quietly hanging on the mantelpiece? If you mention it, a PC will grab it and take it with them. If you don't it wasn't Chekhov's gun in the first place. As long as everything you mention is important, anyway. Players tend to be too genre savvy for a strict Chekov's Gun trope to work.

But it does work well in mass and in reverse. Drop a lot of things that could be important later and then they'll all look like brilliant uses of the trope when they turn out to be important. Everyone will have forgotten all the things that could have been it, but didn't turn out to be.

[feytharn]

Rynjin wrote:

Why shouldn't it? It's a storytelling trope, and most campaigns tell a story.

Yet, the story of the campyign isn't always written in stone, neither are all the elements. As a GM I often provide several npcs or plot points that might all have the same meaning for the campaign, but connect differently to the players.

Basic example: I want the players to connect to an npc in a town so they will be more involved if something happens that threatens the town. Rather than forcing some npc on them, I try to think of several that might 'click' with the players and their characters. I don't know for sure if they will befriend the no-nonsense blacksmith, the bakers young boy that tries to sell pastries on the street, the overworked maid at the tavern etc.

When they do connect strongly to one npc, the others will fade more or less into insignificance, to something that, according to Chekhov's gun shouldn't be in the story in the first place.

[Cap. Darling]

It is a storytelling tool that Can be used in several ways in Interactive storytelling. I often "several guns hanging on the wall" and some if them get used later if the story needs it. It is a Way to bind stories togeather and a good one. It is not a trope it is a tool.
Edit: it cannot work in a only important stuff get to be on stage Way. That is what killed E4. But it Can be used to connect stories. So the short answer is no and the long is yes;)

[Goddity]

My group assumes everything is one of these.

[revaar]

It depends on how genre/trope savvy your group is. For a group that picks up on things like that, it might be better to subvert the notion. For example, when they first catch a glimpse of the BBEG, you mention the the sword that he carries and seems to be his symbol of authority. The party then prepares to fight him as though he is a martial combatant, when it turns out, he is a caster!

[Oly]

I think it's good for Chekhov's Gun to sometimes be a red herring, even in regular fiction to surprise people, and in PF both for that reason and because if you don't railroad you can't know what circumstances might change (and railroading is awful).

[Issac Daneil]

If we can accept that the subject of Chekhov's gun in the given scene (A bloodstained handkerchief in my example) can serve it's purpose by being a distraction at the wrong moment, rather then ACTUALLY relevant to the scene, I'd say yes.

Especially in Mysteries, some items need to be misleading so that players have to really think on it's relevance, (Which is sometimes coincidental) in order to keep the MYSTERY going on.

In my mystery scenarios I'm writing, I make sure that the truth isn't obvious, even once all the clues are gained; the players need to assemble all their evidence, including potential red herrings, and craft a final conclusion through deductive reasoning. No Take 20 on Perception in every room, Mystery solved goes on in my game.

HOWEVER, nothing should be placed in a story without proper history. The above mentioned bloodstained handkerchief needs to appear for some reason, even if that reason is, someone tripped and banged his nose, used the handkerchief, dropped it, and there it is. The players should also have the opportunity to notice someone in their suspects has bloody/broken nose. That way the handkerchief served it's purpose; mislead them, so that the truth is hard to find.

[pennywit]

I spice up my own campaigns with Chekhov's Guns and red herrings ... and sometimes, on the fly, a retroactive Chekhov's Gun shows up when my players get creative.

[Eltacolibre]

Players love this. When you mention something and suddenly, bam it comes back and hit them in the face, best effect, if you wait a couple of sessions before revelation.

[Xexyz]

I try to avoid Chekhov's Guns as much as I can. Players lose immersion in the game if they feel like they're dealing with videogame conventions because every room in the dungeon is nondescript except the one containing the plot coupon.

[thejeff]

Xexyz wrote:

I try to avoid Chekhov's Guns as much as I can. Players lose immersion in the game if they feel like they're dealing with videogame conventions because every room in the dungeon is nondescript except the one containing the plot coupon.

I'm amused by Chekhov's Gun being described as a "videogame convention". You do know it dates to the 19th century, right? Long before videogames (or RPGs, for that matter).

I mean, I do get what you're saying and the relationship, but still...

[Duiker]

Xexyz wrote:

I try to avoid Chekhov's Guns as much as I can. Players lose immersion in the game if they feel like they're dealing with videogame conventions because every room in the dungeon is nondescript except the one containing the plot coupon.

Chekhov's gun ... video game convention ... Chekhov's gun ... video game convention ...

I'm just going to go lay down now, that vein's throbbing in my head again.

[Grey Alchemist]

The problem with Chekhov's Gun is when the GM is not familiar with the trope.

I had a GM who had spider-tanks converted to farm equipment in a post great war Germany. Our mission was to break into a facility, and on the way there he gave us the opportunity to steal a tank. So we did, and by doing so got a TPK in the process. He said it was our fault for taking the tank, the counter-point is don't offer up something that would end the story. I explained Chekhov's gun to him and he realized that if you offer something to the players as flavor odds are they will try to use it.

[John Woodford]

The underlying issue, AISI, is that as a GM, you have some significant bandwidth limitations on communicating information to the players, and in parallel you may have time limitations as well. So on the one hand you don't want to waste your players' time and attention with stuff that goes nowhere, and players have a reasonable expectation that you won't do that. Hence, anything you spend more time and attention on than usual can be assumed to go somewhere. OTOH, words and time spent setting the scene can pay off in player immersion, as long as you're consistent.

[Edymnion]

Actually John, I have had success in intentionally introducing too much information and too many facts that go nowhere, intentionally.

I like adding in things that seem inconsequential at the time, and are. But later on, if the story goes somewhere, I can dig back through those unused hooks and find some that match up and let the players jump to the assumption that I've been planning the current story with foreshadowing for far, far longer than I actually have been.

[Xexyz]

thejeff wrote:

Xexyz wrote:

I try to avoid Chekhov's Guns as much as I can. Players lose immersion in the game if they feel like they're dealing with videogame conventions because every room in the dungeon is nondescript except the one containing the plot coupon.

I'm amused by Chekhov's Gun being described as a "videogame convention". You do know it dates to the 19th century, right? Long before videogames (or RPGs, for that matter).

I mean, I do get what you're saying and the relationship, but still...

Of course, I know exactly where Chekhov's Gun comes from. It's just that, when applied to an interactive medium such as Pathfinder, it can come across as something more akin to mechanics you typically find in videogames. For example, take the fact that in many videogames, you can't interact with anything that doesn't have some relevance to gameplay or the plot.

When it comes to mediums like tabletop RPGs, I tend to think of Chekhov's Gun more in terms of a continuum. Having extraneous detail can go a long way to breathe life into a game or world - which is important to me since I run homebrew.

[Malwing]

Sometimes it backfires in Pathfinder. Some players will discard or sell things that are not 100% optimal for use or forget that it exists. Meanwhile I'm in a Kingmaker game where we've encountered three types of berries and so I preserved them in case we case the different types of berries are significant later in the plot. I also kept the cat.

So basically players will treat everything like a Chekhov's gun or nothing like a Chekhov's gun.

[Xexyz]

Grey Alchemist wrote:

The problem with Chekhov's Gun is when the GM is not familiar with the trope.

I had a GM who had spider-tanks converted to farm equipment in a post great war Germany. Our mission was to break into a facility, and on the way there he gave us the opportunity to steal a tank. So we did, and by doing so got a TPK in the process. He said it was our fault for taking the tank, the counter-point is don't offer up something that would end the story. I explained Chekhov's gun to him and he realized that if you offer something to the players as flavor odds are they will try to use it.

Curious; how exactly did using the tank lead to a TPK? If the GM deliberately lead the PCs to believe that using the tank was the 'correct' way to approach the task then yes, I'd say the GM made an error. Or conversely, if the GM was punishing you for being inventive and not approaching the task the way he envisioned, that's also bad on him. On the other hand, if the GM was just using the tanks as scenery and the TPK was a logical consequence of the group's actions, well them's the breaks.

[Xexyz]

Malwing wrote:

So basically players will treat everything like a Chekhov's gun or nothing like a Chekhov's gun.

I find this is only true with inexperienced players or players who are not yet familiar with the GM's style. Since I've been gaming with my group for over a decade, they're pretty good at eventually figuring out what's important and what's not.

[Neurophage]

The problem with Chekhov's Gun is that it isn't a trope. It's a rule for how to construct a good story which boils down to "if a detail doesn't do anything, don't draw attention to it. If a detail that doesn't do anything will draw attention by its very nature, don't put it in the scene in the first place." So, yes. Every GM should be mindful of Chekhov's Gun because any scenario where I don't know what I'm supposed to be paying attention to is a poorly-constructed one.

[Cthulhudrew]

Eet ees a phaser, not a gun. And definitely not a nuclear wessel.

[Ravingdork]

You really should describe WHAT Chekhov's Gun actually IS in the opening post, for those not in the know. It would allow for more people to participate in the discussion.

[thejeff]

Neurophage wrote:

The problem with Chekhov's Gun is that it isn't a trope. It's a rule for how to construct a good story which boils down to "if a detail doesn't do anything, don't draw attention to it. If a detail that doesn't do anything will draw attention by its very nature, don't put it in the scene in the first place." So, yes. Every GM should be mindful of Chekhov's Gun because any scenario where I don't know what I'm supposed to be paying attention to is a poorly-constructed one.

Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.

[Saldiven]

I disagree with the Chekhov's Gun concept to a degree.

Such a "gun" does not have to "go off" (as Chekhov asserted) for it to be meaningful to the story. The presence of the "gun" might also serve the purpose of indirect characterization for an NPC, in RPG terms, for example.

If the characters enter an NPC's home, and I describe the lavish wealth they witness there, that isn't specifically because I expect or want the characters to attempt to steal it (though they're welcome to try). It's primarily there to let the characters understand that the person to whom they're speaking has a lot of wealth, and likely a lot of influence. If while walking through the home they see a trophy room holding glass cases displaying exotic weapons from around the world and taxidermy representations of fierce monsters, it isn't because I specifically plan for any of those weapons to be used by or upon the characters or because any of those creatures will pose a threat to the characters (though those might be options, too). The main reason is to indirectly indicate to the players that this NPC, or one of his ancestors, was a renowned adventurer in his day.

Those kind of descriptions are far more immersive and entertaining that to say, "The guy you're meeting is a very wealthy, retired adventurer of pretty high level."

[Christopher Dudley]

Cyril Figgis: But i just assumed that if anything bad happened...
Sterling Archer: No, do not say the chekhov gun, Cyril. That, sir, is a facile argument.

[TriOmegaZero]

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

Do you feel that Chekhov's gun ought to apply to roleplaying games? Why or why not?

It should apply as needed to support the story. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[bojac6]

Within a single scene, I don't know that you can pull of Chekov's gun reliably. If you draw attention to something, the players almost always interact with it immediately.

Saldiven wrote:

I disagree with the Chekhov's Gun concept to a degree.

Such a "gun" does not have to "go off" (as Chekhov asserted) for it to be meaningful to the story. The presence of the "gun" might also serve the purpose of indirect characterization for an NPC, in RPG terms, for example.

[...]
Those kind of descriptions are far more immersive and entertaining that to say, "The guy you're meeting is a very wealthy, retired adventurer of pretty high level."

Yes, but if you go through all the trouble of describing the man as a wealthy, retired adventurer, shouldn't him being a wealthy, retired adventurer have a direct impact on the story? That's Chekov's gun. In this example, the gun isn't one of the guns, the gun is that the guy used to be a bad ass.

[Edymnion]

Ravingdork wrote:

You really should describe WHAT Chekhov's Gun actually IS in the opening post, for those not in the know. It would allow for more people to participate in the discussion.

Chekhov's Gun.

Term comes from theater use, namely a letter from Anton Chekhov (a very famous Russian short story writer) where he says "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

Basically, its a specific example used to reference the idea of conservation of detail. The idea that if something is not important to the story, you should ignore it.

Generally speaking, when it comes to descriptions, less is more in literature. Given a basic scene, the reader can and will fill in the various details on his/her own without needing them specifically described. If time is being taken out of the narrative to specifically describe something, then it needs to have some relevant reason for taking up that time.

To use a more RPG familiar idea, its a named NPC. If an NPC has a name, then they are likely important for some reason, as no one cares about the name of the stable hand that brings your horse out to you. If they have a name however, then clearly extra attention has been given to them, which means they are likely to show up again, and hence are important.

---

Again, I like to intentionally subvert that idea by putting in random little details that look like a Chekhov's Gun that may or may not ever fire. Mentioning that a thug the party just captured has a strange tattoo, describing a logo branded into the side of a crate somewhere, or pointing out that a background observer had oddly colored hair.

No intention of using that information at the moment, but if later on in the story I want to introduce a shadowy cult that has been watching the PCs, I can rifle back through my unused plot hooks and find, say, that tattoo guy. I can then make the tattoo how the cult identifies its members, and when I describe it to them again it normally jogs their memory and they go "Holy crap, thats the same tattoo we saw back at lvl 2!"

Which usually leads to the players speculating on whats going on, how things interconnect, etc. More often than not, the players will come up with a much better web of intrigue than I could have on my own, so I can use their musings to farm up more plot points. It makes me look more like the evil mastermind, and makes the players feel good for having discovered my nefarious and carefully crafted plans, when I had no idea we'd even be at this point 2 weeks prior.

[Skeld]

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

Do you feel that Chekhov's gun ought to apply to roleplaying games? Why or why not?

I don't use it per se, because I'm a big fan of red herrings. It keeps players on their toes. Too much Checkov's Gun and they soon always know what to expect.

-Skeld

[LazarX]

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

Do you feel that Chekhov's gun ought to apply to roleplaying games? Why or why not?

It's a tool like any other story tool, something to handle well, or very badly.

[non-dyslexic Valeros]

Is it carefully unloaded, locked, stored where the kids can't reach it, and with all ammunition stored in a separate locked container in a different location where the children can't reach? If so, it's probably fine. If not, you may be out shooting skeet; check to be sure.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Skeld wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

Do you feel that Chekhov's gun ought to apply to roleplaying games? Why or why not?

I don't use it per se, because I'm a big fan of red herrings. It keeps players on their toes. Too much Checkov's Gun and they soon always know what to expect.

-Skeld

I'm not sure that red herrings actually break the Chekhov's gun rule. You do have a reason for the 'gun' - it's just not the reason that the players think that it is.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I'm kinda addicted to this trope, with an emphasis on far-off foreshadowing. People familiar with Age of Worms who read through my PbP quickly see this.

[TriOmegaZero]

Red herrings should be used cautiously, as players are already likely to go off on unrelated tangents enough WITHOUT the GMs help.

[LazarX]

I'm actually more of a fan of using omens for foreshadowing than Chekov's gun. Omens may be handy for building a theme. Such as like petals of a black rose falling, the circling of crows, the chime of a bell. Ars Magica had some great text on the subject.

[Neurophage]

thejeff wrote:

Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

Red Herrings do something. The entire point of a red herring is that it does something other than what you expect it to do. Groundwork does something. It serves as the base for something else that hopefully also does something. In the case of a sandbox, just because the players don't act on something doesn't mean it's static. Things can do something when players aren't looking at them.

thejeff" wrote:

It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.

There's nothing that says that details the PCs don't interact with are static objects. Just because they didn't take the caravan leader's request for aid because they thought it was boring doesn't mean that no one did. Just because someone has to fire the gun on the mantlepiece doesn't mean that it has to be a PC who does it.

thejeff wrote:

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.

With the exception of works with more than one writer, there's nothing stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere. An audience has only what the story tells them to use to interpret the world. They are awash in a sea of nothing with only what's shown on-screen or on-page to know what the world is. When details don't go anywhere, people notice. Just by creating a work, the creator makes a contract with their audience. They promise that they have enough respect for their audience not to waste their time. Attention-grabbing details that don't do anything are huge time-wasters.

[Tacticslion]

More seriously, when used in controlled doses and with caution, it can create great and/or memorable games and stories. Quiet retconning, careful introduction of non-"gun" elements, and similar can either enhance or detract from a gaming experience.

As a recent GM to play-by-posts, I'm learning how much is too much detail in such a format - I'm actually not very good, yet. The post rate is slower, which, in some regards, allows for more detail. But (especially in our current game) the pieces are vast and the playstyles strongly varied. I've yet to figure out how to relate all of the pieces to each other properly for the purposes of running a game that everyone can enjoy. It might even be beyond my current skill-set.

Ultimately, though, I think it's important to set things up, and allow the players to explore.

This post was started at 11:50-ish, but only finished at 12:36 due to interruption with going to get my son up from school. If there is a gap in my logic, that's probably why.

EDIT: Also worth noting, this post is meant to build off of other points rather than make a unique on itself. Also, I may well be a moron. It happens. :)

[thejeff]

Neurophage wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

Red Herrings do something. The entire point of a red herring is that it does something other than what you expect it to do. Groundwork does something. It serves as the base for something else that hopefully also does something. In the case of a sandbox, just because the players don't act on something doesn't mean it's static. Things can do something when players aren't looking at them.

thejeff" wrote:

It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.

There's nothing that says that details the PCs don't interact with are static objects. Just because they didn't take the caravan leader's request for aid because they thought it was boring doesn't mean that no one did. Just because someone has to fire the gun on the mantlepiece doesn't mean that it has to be a PC who does it.

PC doesn't have to do it, but it has to effect the PC somehow. If the gun gets fired offstage and the PCs (and the players and thus the audience) never even learn about it, that's not Chekhov's gun. If it's a sandbox game and someone else takes the caravan job, that's great, but unless it comes back to bite the PCs it doesn't matter. Especially if, as you probably should be doing in sandbox, I'm dropping 2-3 plot hooks for every one the PCs actually bite on, they can't all wind up being important.

Neurophage wrote:

thejeff wrote:

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.

With the exception of works with more than one writer, there's nothing stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere. An audience has only what the story tells them to use to interpret the world. They are awash in a sea of nothing with only what's shown on-screen or on-page to know what the world is. When details don't go anywhere, people notice. Just by creating a work, the creator makes a contract...

I'm not sure what your point is there. Any reasonably complex story, that can't be revised as it goes is going to have some details that get set up and ignored. Plotline gets dropped or changed. Characters go in a different way. Whatever.

It's not that there's something "stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere", it's that there's nothing requiring the writer to make use of every detail that's established anywhere. In a normal story, the writer can just go back and edit out anything that doesn't wind up being used - and edit in new details to support later ideas. If you're publishing as you go, you can't do that, since it's already set in stone. Thus it's a good idea to set up more than you actually expect to need, because you know you won't be able to use some of them.

[Castarr4]

Chekhov's Gun doesn't necessarily apply to loot. You found an oil painting of a noble in a gilded frame worth 200 gp. A jade statuette of a kyton worth 175 gp. A scabbard inlaid with filigree and set with the seal of House Kimat worth 120 gp.

Chekhov's Gun would imply that the statuette is a lich's phylactery, the scabbard is a plot hook to find the remaining heir of House Kimat, and the oil painting has a secret map hidden in its picture. Sometimes loot is just loot, and it's meant to be sold.

Knowledge checks should reveal useful information, Chekhov's Gun style.

Most named NPCs should be plot related.

The large club hanging over the mantle at the tavern might NOT be plot relevant. It's just there to warn the PCs that if they start trouble, the bartender is trained with the greatclub and isn't afraid to use it. It becomes relevant if the PCs choose to start trouble.

So... no for loot, yes for knowledge check results, and mostly for scenery. Anything mentioned as scenery should be a possible Chekhov's Gun, but might not be relevant depending on PC actions.

[Dreaming Psion]

I think there are a few things to consider about a Chekhov's gun:

1) Don't get too attached to it. The players may miss it, discard it, or find their own Chekhov's Gun. (Which in many ways can be for me better than what I had originally intended).

2) Make its placement as naturalistic as you can. This serves two functions- making your players feel good about noticing it and helping to fulfill immersion.

3) Include more than 1, and let the players choose/find which to use

Edit: More things to consider
4) Give a reminder when appropriate. RL time between sessions can be a lot more than in game time, so it only makes sense that the player characters might be allowed for some mechanism of freshening their memories.

5) Use with a sense of tact and grace; the Chekhov's gun need not necessarily be absolutely essential all the time. Sometimes it works just as well as a shortcut to some end.

[Kazaan]

Part of the problem in tabletop RPGs is that Chekhov's Gun often pulls double-duty as Schrodinger's Gun. A lot is determined by knowledge, appraisal, and perception checks. If no one succeeds at the roll, the plot hook might as well not exist. If you're too minimal in your descriptions, then you need to "Schrodinger" in plot hooks based on how well the party can search for them. It's all about a balance between too much detail and not enough. You've got to keep in mind that this is an interactive story, not a static one. In a play or a book, the reader is railroaded based on the actions of the characters. But in a game, players control their characters. Some times, if the whole party fails at their checks and none of your Chekhov's Guns go off, you need a Schrodinger's Gun which wouldn't have otherwise been there to go off and lead them in the right direction (though, typically to their grave detriment for having failed all their checks).

In one of my first games of Pathfinder, we accidentally burned down a witches hut that had an important lead to the next part of the quest. So the GM brought in a Boggeyman NPC to help us on the way by providing us with a map. In exchange, he required our blood to draw the map; which he then kept and provided us with a pre-drawn map. He also gave us a time limit of 24 hours to finish what we needed to do and leave the area, otherwise he'd kill us all. Well, we're all new to Pathfinder and I was new to table-top games in general... so it didn't end well anyway. But the point is that sometimes, Schrodinger's Gun from page 54 doesn't go off because you turned to page 98 rather than page 114.

[Arachnofiend]

Edymnion wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

You really should describe WHAT Chekhov's Gun actually IS in the opening post, for those not in the know. It would allow for more people to participate in the discussion.

Chekhov's Gun.

Term comes from theater use, namely a letter from Anton Chekhov (a very famous Russian short story writer) where he says "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

Basically, its a specific example used to reference the idea of conservation of detail. The idea that if something is not important to the story, you should ignore it.

Generally speaking, when it comes to descriptions, less is more in literature. Given a basic scene, the reader can and will fill in the various details on his/her own without needing them specifically described. If time is being taken out of the narrative to specifically describe something, then it needs to have some relevant reason for taking up that time.

I feel this is an important part of the trope that a lot of people forget about. It was coined in a time where authors were paid by the word count; especially bad in the novels of the time, you would have people spending pages and pages describing a door knob; not a particularly relevant door knob, just a very shiny door knob. For an example, suffer through anything written by Dickens.

Chekhov's Gun is more of a "what not to do" than a "what must be done"; it's a rule encouraging writers to not spend time describing things that are not relevant to the story so that they can instead spend those resources on the good stuff that's actually relevant.

[cnetarian]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I feel this is an important part of the trope that a lot of people forget about. It was coined in a time where authors were paid by the word count; especially bad in the novels of the time, you would have people spending pages and pages describing a door knob; not a particularly relevant door knob, just a very shiny door knob. For an example, suffer through anything written by Dickens.

Chekhov's Gun is more of a "what not to do" than a "what must be done"; it's a rule encouraging writers to not spend time describing things that are not relevant to the story so that they can instead spend those resources on the good stuff that's actually relevant.

I find that completely at odds with Chekov's reality - he was a professional writer who was paid by the article and used to write daily pieces and his first play ( I know Chekov more as a play-write than a short story author) took him all of two weeks to write. While there were (and still are) authors who get paid by the word, the more common arrangement used with authors such as Dickens and Chekov was pay by the piece. The reason some of the Dickens works are so long is because they written as serials with monthly episodes and reading multiple monthly installments of, for example, Bleak House as a novel is like watching a season of 24 as a movie, it is too long.

[tumbler]

Perhaps the best response to Chekov's Gun is in the second act of The Crucilble, where the protagonist walks onstage with a gun that he never uses even though people soon show up to take his wife from him. The whole point, in this case, is that the threat of violence is important.

I have played this out with my group where sometimes the key to the campaign was to not fire the gun. I mean, the gun can kill the bbeg, but only if you lose your soul.

[Goddity]

I heard that the best mystery/intrigue campaigns were the ones were the GM came up with a few seeds to plant, and then just steals a combination of the most outlandish ideas the players come up with.

[tumbler]

Yes, I steal ideas from players at the table all the time.

[Arturus Caeldhon]

Ravingdork wrote:

You really should describe WHAT Chekhov's Gun actually IS in the opening post, for those not in the know. It would allow for more people to participate in the discussion.

I was hoping for opinions from those well versed in the concept, not gut reactions from those just learning about it. I wanted experienced, tested opinions, not nascent ones. I am struggling with the idea, because I am a novelist and also a DM. In my books, I adhere very strictly to Chekhov's gun. In my games, however, I want to describe every room in great detail, but not everything is important. I want to add details that are interesting and give the world life, without them necessarily becoming plot points. But oftentimes the players will latch on to something and then drive the plot in that direction, and I would have to stumble to keep up. So if I adhere to Chekhov's gun in the first place, I won't have that issue, but I feel my game will suffer from a lack of detail. I think there is a line somewhere and I was hoping it was more well defined. However, it seems there is a number of different approaches, which have given me cause for thought. So, thank you! And continue, please :)