So I've been planning my first story for a while now, got it all mapped out with a fair idea of why what happens when where and with whom... In my mind it's ready to put into proper words now, BUT I can't for the life of me decide what POV to use. I keep changing from one to another every two or three chapters, it's maddening. My own experience with writing is practically non-existent - I'm much better as an editor/proofreader - so some advice from someone who knows which end of their pen to use would be appreciated.
POV is highly personal and story dependant. There's no right or wrong answer. 1st Person is great if you're focusing mainly on one character, as it allows you to really get inside their head. 3rd Person is great if you've got an ensemble and want to give each and everyone their own time to shine. I find 2nd a bit awkward as you either have to leave the character a blank slate, or give them details, which can take a user out of the idea they're supposed to be this character. (Then again my most popular story and my favorite story on this site both use 2nd Person POV so what do I know?)
That helps me cross off 3rd person at least, it was already on shaky ground as it is. The other two are still teasing me though... I blame the authors who write such amazing stories using either POV for my indecision lol. Maybe I'll try writing a string of chapters in 1st, then redo them in 2nd and let the story show me what works better
Selecting a POV is a pretty difficult thing in general, but having a branching CHYOA story adds a whole nother dimension of complexity. The nature of the decisions made in your story have an impact on which POV is most appropriate. There are actually four primary POVs in fiction, and I'll go through each of them. First Person - This is generally regarded as the easiest perspective to write from, since you can get inside the protagonist's head and plainly state their emotions without it feeling clunky. You need to narrate in a certain tone, and by writing in first person, you can conflate the narrative voice with the protagonist's personality by simply writing as though the protagonist is relaying events (this isn't exclusive to first person, but much harder otherwise). That said, first person isn't necessarily, or at all, the best option. You are essentially required to describe things from the protagonist's point of view, so that if they perceive things in a different way to reality, you will struggle to communicate that to the reader without abruptly breaking the writing flow. In terms of choices, first person is best for when the choices in your story are all made by one character, but the reader is not exactly given control over them. The character makes plenty of decisions themselves, and choices are restricted based on their personality. The reader is less of a controller and more of an advisor who helps them out in certain situations. If you want your character to be distinct from the reader but highly relatable, then first person is your best bet. Second Person - This is almost exclusively associated with choose-your-own type stories. Writing in second person directs all of your language toward making the reader feel like they're one with the protagonist. Choices feel like real decisions that affect the reader, personally, so it's perfect for game mode stories and others where the reader gets maximum influence over a single character. Immersion is basically inevitable in second person. Its biggest downside is, of course, that the protagonist will often be flat; you can't just tell the reader they think or feel certain ways and expect them to accept it. Saying, "Bobby is horny," is an obversation. Saying, "I am horny," is a proposition. Saying, "You are horny," is an assumption, and a rather confident one at that. If you want your protagonist to be a blank slate that the reader fills with their own personality, or if you want your reader to not only see the world through one character's eyes, but interact with it as them, then second person is for you. Third Person Omniscient - The difference between 3rd POV Omniscient and 3rd POV Limited isn't as well known. In this variant, the narrator is not confined to a single character or group of characters, instead able to report on everything in a purely factual sense. Nothing needs to be hidden from the reader. Put simply, because third-person omniscient allows you to view the thoughts and motives of all characters, in an interactive sense, you're allowing your reader to play god. In a different manner, 3rd POV Omniscient is good if you have a cast of characters that follow different plots. You can easily flow between a variety of voices without abrupt changes in narration, essentially confining yourself to certain perspectives by way of what content you write about, rather than your word choice. If you're looking to maximise relatability in your characters, 3rd POV Omniscient certainly isn't ideal. However, if your story's decisions tend to be ones that none of the protagonists can actually influence, or if you're more interested in reporting and describing events than confronting the reader personally, this is the best choice. Third Person Limited - In this one, you're using third person terminology, but you're deliberately using language that restricts you to one character, or multiple tightly-knit protagonists. This is by far the most common in the 'real' world of writing, because it means you can both explain how someone thinks or feels explicitly, and demonstrate their emotions physically. People aren't self-aware enough to honestly describe themselves as hysterical or pathetic, so you can do it for them. 3rd POV Limited is the home of the age-old advice: show, don't tell. In terms of choices, it's not actually particularly tied to any style I can think of - broadly speaking, if your choices are 'objective' to some extent but all apply to the same character, then it might be best to restrain your writing to that character. Also, if your story is closer to traditional and its choices are sparse, then it probably wants 3rd POV Limited, unless you think first person is better. If you're focused on striking a balance between emotional investment and explicit storytelling, and the nature of the branching points in your story don't heavily lean toward another option, then this might be the preferable option.
I do really like how it's stated above for how the choices for branching paths are laid out as maybe one of the biggest determining factors. I almost always want Second Person stories I read to only branch when you, the protagonist, have to decide the path, and then the next chapter is the consequences. First Person and Third Person can also be fun when you get to deal with the opposite: choices made by characters are in the chapters, and you decide the consequences as the reader to see how the characters react, sort of like being a dungeon master for a tabletop game. There's so many different ways to frame the relationship between the characters, the environment, and the reader (and there's fun and comedic ways to mix the two if you want to break the fourth wall! Like picking the path "Indiana Jones finds a snake" and then in the next chapter he says "I hate it when you give me snakes, you know"). But definitely how you want the reader to be picking branches is a big priority for choosing.
That's quite an interesting concept though I think you should make sure that the reader isn't able to make the character's decision.
It definitely comes down to how the author sets it up, of course! All my writing here has been Second Person, so I have not tackled trying to do something like that with branching paths, but it feels like a similar dynamic to what dungeon masters deal with in various pen-and-paper games.
Second person is tricky for me but for a story where the reader is making a lot of choices it feels right. Especially anything with a game mode, I guess, but I almost never read those. I struggle writing the tense in second person, and every time I write a chapter in second person it breaks my brain a little bit. I may just be dumb tho. First person is the easiest to write for me by far, and it feels like it's just telling someone a story about something that happened. If you have a good 'handle' on the character you're writing as I find the words flow so easily. Also, this is the POV where the story takes off in ways I didn't expect as I'm writing it, which is fun. To me, it's like the characters are more real in my head maybe. Third person is the easiest way to tell a story, if not the easiest to write, if that makes sense. You can jump around in time or locations and you're not as constrained by telling the story as the a certain character saw it. The way insertnamehere breaks the variants down is great, and I think third person limited is maybe the most familiar to readers a lot of the time, it's the style of like A Song of Ice And Fire and innumerable similar epic stories. I feel like it gives a little more personality in the prose than fully God's-eye-view third person omniscient.
The majority of published books are third person limited, regardless of genre. Occasionally they might be in first person, especially if meant for a younger audience, but the others are extremely rare. Omniscient might show up in classic novels. If I recall, 1984 and P&P are omniscient.
It took some thinking and more back and forth, but thanks to your explanations and a few test chapters I finally decided on 3rd Limited. While 2nd person would have been fun I found it a bit restrictive for the interactions I want to describe. I think the broader view 3rd Limited allows will work nicely. Hopefully now I can start publishing sometime this century lol. Thanks a lot for the advice
A bit of necromancy, but this thread deserves to be high... I kinda disagree with your opinion on 2nd person. Sure, 2nd person is great for stories with a vague protagonist's personality, allowing the reader to see themselves as a part of the story. But it is absolutely OK to say the reader - you are horny, you are angry, you remember this or that event from your past, you are tall and muscular, you are of the opposite gender, you are whatever IF your reader is willing to roleplay and use their imagination. It is how RPGs work. GM who cares about immersion won't say, "You failed a willpower check and your character is afraid," they'll say "You are afraid."
I disagree. In an experienced group, the GM won't say "You're afraid" but describe the situation/scene in a way that the players would be afraid in their characters' shoes.
Good descriptions here. What if a third person narrative is super detached, and only describes actions/scenery/reactions without delving into or attributing thoughts to characters? Something like: [A man walked up to the edge of the pond, and the geese flapped away in a flurry of wings. Across the shore, a woman watched the man. She didn't move or make a sound, and if the man noticed her, he made no motion to reveal the fact. A breeze flitted through the leaves in the nearby trees, causing one to detach from its home on the highest branch and float lazily toward the woman. She might have noticed this, if she took her eyes off the man, but she did not, and so the leaf tangled itself unseen into her hair.] I suppose that would just be a detached form of third person omniscient, but it seems like a fallacy to call it omniscient when the narrator isn't actually omniscient because it can only guess at the thoughts of the characters lol (Edit: nvm, I looked it up. It's called 3rd person objective, for anyone curious. I might try this in a story once I wrap up some of my other ideas.)
In freeform games, this may be a better approach but when you have rules, you actually need to inform your player about failed checks and other stuff like that. Also, it is still 2nd person. Unless GM is referring to characters as "your character(s)"
It's rarely a good idea, in my opinion (which is probably why I forgot about it). The best "excuses" to use it usually end up being third person subjective as some outside character or force is used as a framing device. I wouldn't claim that it isn't okay, but the more your protagonist deviates from the reader's actual personality, the less they will identify with it, and adding details will increase this difference. For example, "You are horny," will usually be a correct assumption in the context of a CHYOA story, so if you try to push a protagonist that is distinctly unhorny, you will often frustrate the reader. In other words, your "IF" here certainly warrants its capitalisation. The reader's suspension of disbelief should be kept in mind when making assertions about their perspective character.
Even if you have rules, you can rely on an (experienced) player's ability to understand whether their character needs to be afraid by the given description based on their character's stats. If a player uses their seduction ability, they could simply try to seduce the NPC by directing the effort at the game master. (And the game master could use the player's character's seduction ability stat as a baseline and determine how good it works depending on the player's performance.) That kind of conversation rather defies the idea of role-playing. (It's also way more surprising without a roll when there is a trap in the back room.) Sure, that doesn't work for most of the combat rolls. But even there, you might have situations where a player can describe an action/attack. And that description could be taken into account by the game master to modify a (maybe hidden) roll either way.
I think that's key right there, the reader needs to be able to project themself onto the character especially in second person. It's why I prefer POV porn I think, I literally just want a floating dick I can project myself onto. I don't want to really hear to see the guy at all.
