Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-26006155-20200110002935

And as I've said many times, Ambassador, what you think are contradictions might also just be evidence you don't understand. Situations set up so characters break rules, and reveal more about themsevles by doing so.

A finished jigsaw puzzle doesn't have contradictions. And I've found models for both FNAF and Undertale that line up very nicely,. There is definitely a story in both, and a powerful one.

If you don't think there's a story, what are you doing here? Encouraging everyone to leave?

Very disrespectful.

Jacky, I should expand how I use Story Potential in my research.

Obviously my hunches about what makes a better story don't count as hard evidence.

They're used as a compass to brainstorm promising story ideas, that can then be tested against the evidence.

The idea is that if you try every possiblity, you will eventually, inevitably, stumble across the pattern that works, without contradictions. The Perfect Pattern. Sometimes it takes a very long process of trial and error to make a breaththrough this way, which is why I like to call the technique Reverse Engineering a story, but eventually it does work.

How do you know when you've found the pattern, or at least a few pieces that fit together? When a coherent story starts to emerge. Just like how a few jigsaw pieces show a glimpse of the picture they were made from.

Consider this: The more pieces that fit into a given pattern, the more likely it is that that pattern isn't random, but actually was part of the artist's design.

If, by refining a partially working pattern, you're able to account for more of the puzzle pieces, then you're heading in the right direction.

Let's say you take something seemingly chaotic like FNAF, and are able to create a story that is not only interesting, but has a moral message as well, does not rely on any Artist Mistakes, and seemlessly accounts of 95% of the puzzle pieces you've discovered.

What are the odds that this design was not, in fact, the artist's intention, but an alternative solution where all the pieces still fit well, that was spawned out of pure chaotic chance?

Low. Very low. Vanishingly low.

And the better your pattern gets, accounting for more, and more, and MORE of the pieces, which now seem to be drawn toward the greater assembly as if by a magnet, falling into place with increasing rapidity, the greater the chance that you're also on the right track. And the lower the chance that this is all in your imagintion.

Finally, when one finds a pattern that accounts for all the pieces, that fit together seemlessly, and tell an epic story out of details that once seemed impossible to understand, it's just like seeing the finished picture on a jigsaw puzzle.

The chance of this being a random pattern that the artist didn't intend in now Zero.

And while this might not be a traditional, orthodox method for problem solving complex puzzles, it works. I've used it before successful with Steven Universe.

It doesn't matter how you find the Perfect Pattern, or how many limbs you have to go out on in order to assemble it piece by piece. Once you *have* The Perfect Pattern, you can submit it as a real, logical answer.

Ambassador, Cutesy, Ocean and others love to prune my tree whenever I try to go out on a limb to test how viable a story possiblity is, shooting it dead at the very first, least certain step and then declaring the whole project dead in its infancy.

But it's by building and refining these increasingly more probable webs that I come by my answers. And once The Perfect Matter emerges, people are hard pressed to disprove it.