Writing Which approach to moving the plot do you prefer: world influences MC or MC influences world?

[Eldoria]

Imagine the following two plot scenarios:

(1) World influences MC. The world here is alive, has a social system, and has characters other than MC. Conflict in a location can create a chain reaction that can ultimately affect MC's life.

For example, a war between kingdoms causes the distribution of wheat to be hampered, leading to an increase in food prices, which ultimately affects the MC's daily life.

MC here is a character who lives in a living and dynamic world. To show the conflict more broadly, POVs usually also use other characters who influence the plot. MC's POV is just one perspective in viewing the world.

(2) MC influences world. The MC here is usually the center of the story. The MC's actions can influence the world.

For example, MC defeats the demon king in a hero's journey. His heroism will change the world as a whole, either for better or worse.

The world here is usually only seen from the MC's perspective. The story follows MC's POV without involving the POVs of other characters.

 

[c37]

Somewhere in between? I prefer dynamic worlds where the MC's actions affect a few things.

 

[MakBow]

Depends on the story.

I prefer either since both are good depending on the setting and story

 

[Arakun10809]

Both. I just like to find a bit of nuance in stories that do both. Berserk is one of the best examples, as the world itself influences Guts, but also he influences it inadvertently. Small decisions, such as leaving The Band of the Hawk, paved the road for Griffith's self-destruction, betrayal, and his ascendancy as a member of the God Hand. Events like these ultimately led to all of the horrific things that we see in the manga, as one's own decisions can ultimately shape the makeup of reality itself.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Personally, I like World influence weak MC first and then Strong MC influence the World.

I once had a work that MC becomes the "strongest" but the world's so fucked that it was just pointless and it gave me blue balls.

... I feel like I just described a FromSoul's game. Yes, every single one of them.

 

[DismaiNaim]

Why can't we have both?

 

[AliceMoonvale]

(mostly because my current stories are one of each)

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Imagine the following two plot scenarios:

(1) World influences MC. The world here is alive, has a social system, and has characters other than MC. Conflict in a location can create a chain reaction that can ultimately affect MC's life.

For example, a war between kingdoms causes the distribution of wheat to be hampered, leading to an increase in food prices, which ultimately affects the MC's daily life.

MC here is a character who lives in a living and dynamic world. To show the conflict more broadly, POVs usually also use other characters who influence the plot. MC's POV is just one perspective in viewing the world.

(2) MC influences world. The MC here is usually the center of the story. The MC's actions can influence the world.

For example, MC defeats the demon king in a hero's journey. His heroism will change the world as a whole, either for better or worse.

The world here is usually only seen from the MC's perspective. The story follows MC's POV without involving the POVs of other characters.

To quote everyone so far, reciprocal.

 

[Envylope]

I like a mix but prefer the MC driving the story.

 

[ElijahRyne]

Imagine the following two plot scenarios:

(1) World influences MC. The world here is alive, has a social system, and has characters other than MC. Conflict in a location can create a chain reaction that can ultimately affect MC's life.

For example, a war between kingdoms causes the distribution of wheat to be hampered, leading to an increase in food prices, which ultimately affects the MC's daily life.

MC here is a character who lives in a living and dynamic world. To show the conflict more broadly, POVs usually also use other characters who influence the plot. MC's POV is just one perspective in viewing the world.

(2) MC influences world. The MC here is usually the center of the story. The MC's actions can influence the world.

For example, MC defeats the demon king in a hero's journey. His heroism will change the world as a whole, either for better or worse.

The world here is usually only seen from the MC's perspective. The story follows MC's POV without involving the POVs of other characters.

Ha trick question, the true answer is to approach the question like a dialogue. If the MC influences the world, then the world should influence them and vice versa. This is also missing the more important/impactful conflict of characters influencing the MC, and them influencing other characters. In short every conflict and resolution in my opinion should be in conversation with the one(s) before it and the one directly after it. The world and its inhabitants should constantly be changing, the world should be dialectical.

 

[Dawnathon]

I have to agree with the others. Even if you had to pick only one, it depends too much on the story itself. Most of the time you'd want both. With a protagonist that has a dynamic arc, you'd typically expect the world to influence them until they become important and powerful enough to start influencing the world instead.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I kind of prefer when the world forces the MC to come out and change it.

 

[MFontana]

Imagine the following two plot scenarios:

(1) World influences MC. The world here is alive, has a social system, and has characters other than MC. Conflict in a location can create a chain reaction that can ultimately affect MC's life.

For example, a war between kingdoms causes the distribution of wheat to be hampered, leading to an increase in food prices, which ultimately affects the MC's daily life.

MC here is a character who lives in a living and dynamic world. To show the conflict more broadly, POVs usually also use other characters who influence the plot. MC's POV is just one perspective in viewing the world.

(2) MC influences world. The MC here is usually the center of the story. The MC's actions can influence the world.

For example, MC defeats the demon king in a hero's journey. His heroism will change the world as a whole, either for better or worse.

The world here is usually only seen from the MC's perspective. The story follows MC's POV without involving the POVs of other characters.

This actually falls under one of my narrative-writing rules.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected.
Everything in the story has an influence on everything else. Be it small, or large, in scope and scale.

The world is effectually just another character in the narrative. It changes, and adapts, as the narrative progresses, just as it exerts an influence on the characters; prompting them to act.

So, to answer your question, El, it is both, and neither. What I prefer as both a reader, and author, is a "Living World".

In essence, the following being implemented within the narrative.

"The world is lived in, and the characters live in it."
In this way, everything that happens within the narrative on the micro-scale (individual) is happening on the macro-scale (world) as well.

The world isn't influenced explicitly by any single character exclusively, nor does it influence any single character exclusively.

Any character, at any time, is both influencing the world and/or being influenced by it.
Their actions have consequences, and the world adapts, even to the simplest of choices, or actions, by any given character.

While at the same time, their decisions and actions come about by a cocktail of their worldview, beliefs, current circumstances, goals, and motivations blending together to inform those actions or choices; which is, in effect, them being influenced by the world.

 

[ElijahRyne]

This actually falls under one of my narrative-writing rules.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected.
Everything in the story has an influence on everything else. Be it small, or large, in scope and scale.

The world is effectually just another character in the narrative. It changes, and adapts, as the narrative progresses, just as it exerts an influence on the characters; prompting them to act.

So, to answer your question, El, it is both, and neither. What I prefer as both a reader, and author, is a "Living World".

In essence, the following being implemented within the narrative.

"The world is lived in, and the characters live in it."
In this way, everything that happens within the narrative on the micro-scale (individual) is happening on the macro-scale (world) as well.

The world isn't influenced explicitly by any single character exclusively, nor does it influence any single character exclusively.

Any character, at any time, is both influencing the world and/or being influenced by it.
Their actions have consequences, and the world adapts, even to the simplest of choices, or actions, by any given character.

While at the same time, their decisions and actions come about by a cocktail of their worldview, beliefs, current circumstances, goals, and motivations blending together to inform those actions or choices; which is, in effect, them being influenced by the world.

Exactly ideally the world should be dialectical in nature. Of course the ideal is different from real. Style, skill, tone, and intended scope can make this issue variable. Also often just ping ponging in between action and consequence/response might be counterproductive. Where instead of abab, aabb, abba, baab, etc. might be more effective. Ideally however, every character should effect the world, the world should effect every character, and every character interaction should effect every character in said interaction. They are all in dialogue with each other.