@Riot ShadowStorm: The psychology behind stories with regard to questions, answers, and speculation

I wanted to make this it's own thread after typing it up in this other thread, because what I want to discuss is not directly related to answering directly the specific questions asked by ShadowStorm, but are related in one way or another.

It's a wall of text. No TL;DR. These are my humble opinions with regards to what I consider a logical, psychological insight to what readers expect from stories as a whole.

I'm fairly new into exploring any of the lore, so I come from the perspective of a player who can't really compare current storytelling with storytelling in the past. So my opinion comes directly from the perspective of a player only looking at current lore.

Most everything regarding the questions [ShadowStorm] asked have been answered by many of the more eloquent users in the thread linked above, but as a member of my university's nationally-recognized Ethics and Debate team, I would just like to address the psychological aspect of how people relate to stories and questions/answers as a whole rather than addressing specific recent cases.

First Impressions of a Story

Stories have one chance to "capture" you; they have the introductory chapter(s). Without an external source reassuring you that the story is worth reading, if a story fails to capture you after just a few pages, that story will often be shelved by the reader. If the reader does decide to put away the story, at that point it does not matter how much more interesting the story becomes, because the reader has already dismissed the entire story based on his first impression.

This is exactly why having a very good introductory story on champion release is important. This is the reason why, as far as I am aware, Rek'Sai's story was a success and Bard's story was considered uninteresting; Rek'Sai's story gave a glimpse into the mindset of the denizens of the area and gave some context for Rek'Sai without revealing everything about Rek'Sai herself. On the other hand, Bard's animation, while good from an animation standpoint, didn't give any information to go on regarding his story at all other than, as one user put it, he is "cosmic and mysterious and doesn't care about people."

First impressions work this way in all situations. This is precisely why Riot prefers to release champions a little bit on the strong side and then nerf them when people learn how to play them until they are balanced rather than release them weaker and subsequently buff them. Champions that are weak on release are immediately disregarded by the public, despite whatever buffs may come (Bard). On the flip side, generally speaking, if a champion is strong and immediately popular, people will be okay with champions strong on release that get nerfed (Sion). If they aren't okay with the changes, they'll at least be willing to give the champion a chance. It's easier from a balance perspective as well as a popularity perspective, since releasing a weak champion effectively adds an entire step to balancing them (which I would be happy to explain in another post).

Question/Answer Timing within a Story

Now, regarding question and answer timing by those who follow stories.

Speculation and questioning is the next step in any story, and only truly occurs after the story has enticed the reader to continue following the story. Answering questions too quickly, as well as delaying answers too long, are both bad for a story.

Consider if too many clues were given in a Sherlock Holmes book in the first four chapters as to who the murderer is. We would say the story lacks proper depth and doesn't keep the reader's attention because the subsequent chapters would all be predictable and boring. I, for one, would probably just flip to the last chapter at that point, see that I was correct, and dismiss the rest of the book without reading what happens in between chapter four and chapter nineteen.

Next, let's consider what happens when a story is always left with questions and seemingly no ending. As we can clearly see from Bleach's decline in popularity as well as (and some may hate me for insinuating this) One Piece's decline in popularity, we can see that people do, in fact, need closure to stories for them to be worth their time. If questions are never answered, reader interest wanes just as when questions are answered too quickly. Will Luffy ever become the Pirate King? Unfortunately, the author has suggested he still has ten years before he answers that question. I, for one, know that my interest in the entire story vanished after that statement because I frankly don't want to wait ten more years for the end.

Healthy Speculation

Lastly, I just want to touch on the concept behind what speculation is in its essence. Speculation is, obviously, when people make an educated guess on the answer to a question for the time being until an answer to their question is actually given. During this part of a story, the reader needs enough information to warrant speculation, but not too much information as to give any answers away. (The lack of information with regards to Bard is the reason that I, as well as many others, simply don't care about his lore at all right now; there is simply not enough to even begin making guesses.) This is what creates the story between the introduction and the end. This is why reader interest can even grow between one volume of a story and the next; cliffhangers are incredibly effective marketing tools and people love the feeling of trying to figure out the answer to a question on their own so they can say "I KNEW IT!" when they finally are revealed the answer.

In debate, there is a huge problem with speculation that arises when a subsequent question is asked that depends on an answer to a prior question to which the answer hasn't yet been revealed. Speculation is just a guess. If a question is raised that depends on an answer to that speculation, everything gets really muddy. It's a bit tricky to understand, but we experience it everyday we make assumptions. I'll use a simple example to try to explain it.

I have a cookie jar filled with chocolate chip cookies. Let's say Mike, who wears a Team Fortress 2 shirt, comes into my house and when he leaves, there are less cookies in my jar. Let's now ask three questions.

1. Who stole the cookies?
2. Does the person who stole the cookies like TF2?
3. Does Mike like chocolate chip cookies?

Now, we can speculate that Mike stole the cookies. Mike wears a TF2 shirt. Based solely on the assumption that Mike stole the cookies, one may speculate that the cookie thief, Mike, does enjoy TF2. And since Mike is the person who presumably stole my chocolate chip cookies, he must like chocolate chip cookies. This would be a perfectly logical conclusion one may make.

Here's the thing: if the answer to Question 1 is wrong, NEITHER 2 nor 3 can even be speculated, period. If my brother stole the cookies, the rest of the questions are entirely worthless. We don't have a clue if my brother, the cookie thief, likes TF2. We also have no idea whether or not Mike likes chocolate chip cookies, because he didn't steal the cookies and we have no information to go on regarding his cookie preference.

These are the things the lore team needs to address. We can't be left to speculate forever, because for all we know, our very own questions could be wrong. The lore team keeps throwing questions at the userbase and giving us tons of area for speculation, which is good, but is failing to provide any answers to their questions. Readers are very well aware that they can't begin to speculate on some things because of a lack of information. This is one of the main complaints of lore fans explained from a logical perspective. This is key.

I greatly encourage discussion by the community, any points you may feel I have missed and any points you feel I may be mistaken about.