The Forge Archives

In the 'Help a GNS illiterate?' thread, Garbanzo stated the following:

QuoteG vs S vs N: I'm a noble Paladin, all about sanctity of life, yada yada. Do I loot the bodies?
G - Yup. I need the gold, they might have some good treasure, etc
S - No. My order wouldn't behave that way. Doesn't make game-world sense, so I won't do it.
N - No or Yes. My character's all about Honor, and this is a decision: now that I'm strapped for resources, do I bend my moral code?

This got me to thinking that there seems to be a fundamental difference between the G & S examples, and the N example.

Putting GNS distinctions aside, what strikes me about this instance is that the first and second examples are really about Establishment of character, while the third is about Development of character.

In the second example, the character (previously defined as a Paladin, with all that entails) is merely re-inforcing the pre-existing definition of the character. Establishing, or rather, re-establishing the fact that the character has a strict code of honor by which he/she is bound.  The character has not really grown by this decision, other than by the re-inforcement of pre-existing assumptions.  The character has remained within their mold.  Thus, I propose, no real development of the character has occured.  Rather, the character has taken an action which establishes and reinforces their definition as a paladin, nothing more.

The third example, however, leaves the character questioning their actions.  Whether or not the paladin does loot the corpse, their code of behavior has been developed, rather than established, because the character has considered their actions in a broader sense, and has grown by undergoing that internal conflict.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the first two examples are instances of 'I take the actions I do because I'm a paladin' and thus establish their paladinhood for the player and the rest of the group, and the later example is 'I am a paladin because of the actions I take' and thus developing on the reasons why the character is a paladin, and acts the way they do.  The first is rather static, the second dynamic.

I'm sorry if this seems a bit incoherent.  I'm trying to decide if establishment/development is a usable delineation of character action.  I'm hoping that throwing this concept 'to the wolves', as it were, might help to solidify/obliterate this distinction in my mind.

Also, if it is usable, then what about the other four elements of Exploration?  Can events/actions regarding system, setting, situation, and color be categorized in such a way?  By the same terms?


ps.  I placed this in the GNS forum because it seems to be a sub-layer to the elements of Exploration.

Hopefully someone will point to a couple of the threads where this has been discussed before.  

I remember one conversation using GURPs (or perhaps Champions) as an example where the various Code of Behavior disadvantages and such would be considered rules to be enforced (as in "you're not playing your character right, he's supposed to be honorable") in a simulationist group.  A narrativist group might well go into the same game with the same character with the assumption that somewhere along the line that code WILL be challenged and quite possibly violated and that the whole point will be to see what it takes to get the character to that decision point.

Hi Mortaneus,

Your observation is valid for the examples given, but it doesn't apply as a general rule. Flexible and/or changing behaviors can be observed in all three modes of play, but the point of each instance will differ very much in the same way the examples differ.

For example, in some Gamist play, that paladin may well be stuck with his noble and non-looting behavior if the group considers that constraint to be associated with the paladin's unique combat advantages. If that's the case, then sooner or later, the player might decide to take the penalty for violating the behavior-code relative to the gains of the moment. That's strategizing among various constraints relative to local conditions of gains and loss, which is a big part of Gamist play.

Or, for example, in some Simulationist play, the system may include some sort of moral "number-line," in which the looting behavior will slide the paladin along the values. All right, he goes ahead and loots, but loses some in-game privilege or perhaps some kind of "respect rating" for his behavior, and the group is now interested in seeing this aspect of the setting come to life.

Check out my article Simulationism: the right to dream (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/), specifically the section called "Shit! I'm playing Narrativist!" for some more discussion and examples.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsFlexible and/or changing behaviors can be observed in all three modes of play, but the point of each instance will differ very much in the same way the examples differ.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, but I was using the examples as a basis for consideration of Establishment vs. Development, and largely ignoring the GNS distinctions presented in the example.  Effectively, pulling the distinction out of the GNS framework in which it was originally presented by Garbanzo, and attempting to examine it as a subset of the elements of Exploration, rather than as a part of the modes of play.

I was wondering if such a distinction would be useful as a subset to the elements.  For instance, being able to divide events/actions into Establishing and Developing categories, not only in the context of character, but also for setting, situation, color, and system.

Hello,

Ah! Good point. I see what you're after; it seems to be related to some of the issues being discussed current threads, about what's fixed and what isn't. But it's more about change or flexibility of in-game elements rather than what is or is not known to be "true" by the people at the table.

Static vs. dynamic ... well, it seems to me that all five elements of play may be customized to various degrees along the spectrum you're proposing. Not much of an insight, perhaps. Any further thoughts on the subject?

Best,
Ron

Well, I was considering some of the recent discussions on the Riddle of Steel forum regarding how SAs can reasonably change during the course of play, and started considering the distinction between static growth vs. dynamic growth of characters.

I've been attempting to clarify what it is about some characters/settings/plots/etc that leave me feeling 'flat'.  The problem crystalized in my mind when I read the paladin examples in the other thread.

Many players I've encountered don't seem to understand the difference between static character growth and dynamic character growth.  Dynamic character growth often isn't even considered.  Yet, when I attempt to discuss the problem with the players, they claim that there HAS been character development.

I'm attempting to clarify what they think they're seeing as growth.  I don't believe character development is the proper term for it, character establishment being a better term.  Development in terms of character, at least for me, implies a certain level of basic change, questioning, malleability, and maturing into something greater than they once were.  Spock, for instance, in Star Trek VI tells a younger vulcan that logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.  A much younger spock would have never made that statement.  The character has developed beyond what he once was by questioning the basic assumptions behind who and what he is.

All too often, however, I'm presented with characters, settings, stories that, despite a plethora of action, never really go anywhere.  They don't 'breathe'.

I've often been complemented on my GMing style by various players, saying that my games have a certain 'something' which many others lack. I've always tried to explain that while it's the highlights which provide the structure, it's the exceptions and faults that give a setting or character flavor.  I'm always adding elements to my settings/stories/characters which sometimes contradict what they appear to be, on the surface.

I'm trying to find a good way to explain to my peers what they seem to be missing, and why elements within one game can be so compelling, and why some can be so bland.  I'm proposing that they're mistaking establishment for development.

I'm not making a value-judgement on either of these factors, but rather stating that I find that many people only consider one of them, and neglect the other, leading to a lack of dimension in one or more elements in a game.

Essentially, I'm proposing that unless both developmental and establishing factors are considered when exploring the elements, the exploration effort is effectively crippled.

Hi Mort,

I think I have a good feel for what you're talking about. I'm going to venture a thought, and you let me know if I'm hot or cold here.

When you're talking about character development, you're talking about that character coming to a point where they have to make a "decision" about themselves.  

To take an easy example, consider the typical Disney sports story- misfit players, losers, revitalized and unified by (coach, new player, whatever), and transformed into winners- doing it their unorthodox way.  The key decision point in most of these movies is the decision whether the character is going to change their ways(sell out, give up), or find a way to succeed through their unique style(self-acceptance).

Bringing this back to rpgs, the fact that the characters got better is really secondary to the fact that they've made a decision to be true to themselves or not, that's where the real character development has occurred.  Is this along the lines of what you're talking about?

If so, the key difference in the sort of play that you're seeking and the sort of play that you are running up against is literally "character change".  Consider this:  at the end of the aforementioned type stories, the main character has changed in some significant manner, while the typical rpg story is about changing a situation, not a character.

Linking this to Ron's Sim essay, a great deal of many games have characters become those static("I am samurai, I act like this.  I am Lawful good, I act like this") sorts of things, which most players are used to.  After you get lumped on the head enough times for trying to change your character in mid-play, you learn to stop("But I really wanted to fall so I could climb back to redemption!").

Again, if I'm on the right track here with what you're talking about, I'd recommend the best "bridge" for conveying this concept is to pull out some movies or tv episodes where you see this in play, and show your players an example of what you are talking about.  In Unforgiven, the point is when Clint gives up on trying to be a good man, he decides to give in and "give the people what they want".  In Return of the Jedi, its when Darth decides to throw the Emperor down the shaft.

This is the "meaningful decision" that pops up every so often around here.  The decision is meaningful, not because the world/universe hangs on the edge, but rather, it says something important and meaningful about the character making it.  It is a statement about "who this guy is".

Chris

Hi there,

I'll expand on Chris' point to reinforce one that Mortaneus already made: that this concept may apply regardless of GNS mode. Games like Pendragon and Unknown Armies include systems for character decisions and values-changes in an extremely Simulationist-support mode, as I see it.

We tend to associate the decision-heavy character with Narrativism because in that mode, protagonist characters must have that capability; their decisions are the whole point of play. But that doesn't mean that the same dynamism must be absent in the other modes (although the "whole point" part would indeed be absent).

I hope that helps out a bit with your point, Mort.

Best,
Ron

Thanks Bankuei, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Hmm.....

That brings up another thought, though this might be devolving into a pure thought-exercise....

The problem seems to be an overabundance, and a preference for character stasis.  The opposite end of the spectrum doesn't work by itself either, though.   Pure dynamism in a character also leads to disfunction.  Without the static elements, the changes that take place have little real significance.



Now, to toss this back into the GNS arena, do you think that characters in each mode tend to swing more towards one side of the spectrum or the other?  

It seems to me that in Gamist modes, character tend to be more static, Narrativist more dynamic, with Sim being somewhere in the middle.  Of course, I'm just speaking of trends here, as any of the three modes are not directly linked to the static/dynamic spectrum...though I find it hard to imagine a Narrativist mode with highly static characters....though Judge Dredd does come to mind...

Looks like we cross-posted, there.

To be clear as I can, Narrativist play necessarily entails dynamism in the decision-making potential ("moral range," call it what you will) of the characters. I think that both Gamist and Simulationist play can express the entire range of dynamism/stasis, although a given game or game-group will probably specify its range (e.g. the Madness Meters in Unknown Army, for a dynamic example; and the Psychological Limitations in GURPS, for a static one).

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsLooks like we cross-posted, there.

Sorry about that, I took too long thinking, I guess.  :)

Quote
To be clear as I can, Narrativist play necessarily entails dynamism in the decision-making potential ("moral range," call it what you will) of the characters.

Here's a question, though...Judge Dredd implicitly asks the question 'When is justice more important than liberty', and yet the protagonist is INCREDIBLY static.  Would it be possible to play Narrativist in this context?

In play terms, is it possible to be in a Narrativist mode with a purely static character, effectively exploring the premise on a player level, yet not on a character level?  To have the character serve as a window into the narrative, yet remain unnaffected by it on any meaningful level?

Hi there,

Damn well-stated question. My claim is "Yes," with a couple of things to point out to make it work.

1. Protagonism would best be achieved through a set of characters rather than one. It would work very nicely for a game like Hero Wars, in which (for instance) Batman's sheet would include the characters Jim Gordon, Alfred, and Robin. They really aren't NPCs at all; they're "abilities" of Batman's. This means that the moral crux of a given story would hinge on the relationship among them, not just the decisions of one of them.

2. Event/decision outcomes at the purely player level could be well achieved with a strong Director stance component to play, such as the Coincidence rules in Extreme Vengeance. What this means is that even though the character is being stern-jawed and cross-eyed in his fixated single-solution approaches, contexts and coincidences surrounding his actions tend to favor outcomes that we (as authors) favor in terms of making some point (Theme) using the Premise at hand.

Best,
Ron

Hi Mort,

Glad that we're on the same wavelength here.  To hit your points in reverse order:

QuoteHere's a question, though...Judge Dredd implicitly asks the question 'When is justice more important than liberty', and yet the protagonist is INCREDIBLY static. Would it be possible to play Narrativist in this context?

Yes, this is very possible, and if done correctly is a very strong statement about a character.  Consider the Disney movie once more, there is a strong statement in the fact that the characters often choose to remain true to themselves, unchanging.  Some other worthwhile examples would be Rorschach from the Watchmen comics, Batman in many of his incarnations, or Maximus from Gladiator.  All the characters I've mentioned really fulfill that "unchanging star" role(to pull a term from Sorcerer and the Sword).

But the key point to this is that in Narrativism, for the meaningful choice to occur is that remaining static has to be an active, conscious choice.  A paladin doesn't show his morals by saying, "Screw you evil guy!", he shows it when he is truly tempted, and still, makes the right decision.  By choosing to remain as you are, you're making a big statement about yourself.

This is the reason that many of the games aimed towards Narrativism focus on giving players more input into the conflicts they face, since a paladin who is never morally tempted can't make that choice, ever.

Now, onto a second  point:

QuoteThe problem seems to be an overabundance, and a preference for character stasis.

This, again, is because many players are used to the static rules for character personality.  If your experience gaming is that certain aspects of your character are set in stone(class, powers, stats, personality, alignment, etc.), then the concept of being able to change them in play is often not even thought of.  The terrible part is that this assumption has caused a sort of vicious circle- "This is how games work, so this is how we design them, so that's how games work..."

As you've mentioned before with Riddle of Steel, this is where lots of folks get lost on the Spiritual Attributes.  The fact that they can change in the midst of play, or be completely ignored goes right past people.  They assume that the SAs are set in stone, like many other things, but because SAs are dynamic, is what allows TROS to insert some real "meaningful choice" between the sword fights.

Chris

I've often pondered just this issue, so I'll avoid repeating what others have already said.  I think many of the role- vs roll-playing arguments actually center on establishment vs devlopment issues, so its one that bears examining.

I have an example that I think speaks well to two issues.  First, it shows how a static character can still function in a Narrativist mode.  Second, it shows how you can be true to moral codes without stifling character development.

I played a character with a very Judge Dredd type attitude (essentially he felt that legalistic duty over-rode all concerns, especially emotional ones) in a Sim-heavy campaign.  He maintained this code through seven years of play, so clearly a lot of establishment went on.  In fact, every single friend or lover this character had wound up dying when he had to choose between them or his code.

But I realized that the character had completely changed over that time period - development had crept in despite a focus on establishment.  The young character had felt "We must obey duty because people who do the right things benefit from it."  The old character would have said "We must obey duty because life is cruel and capricious; the only thing we can control is ourselves."  In a thematic sense, his position has clearly been shown to be wrong, plus there was a lot of irony in the fact that this character caused himself most of that pain, but refused to acknowledge it (since he did "the right thing").

Thus, even obeying a strict and static moral code, significant elements of the character still changed over time.

One way to show these changes is to encourage players to discuss cognitive processes in their characters as part of role-playing.  Many players try to keep their characters' motives hidden (it's the only thing they can keep "behind the screen") and some even think it's bad role-playing to openly discuss a character's secret feelings.  Expressing emotional development in the face of behavioral establishment adds a new level of depth.

Quote from: jdagnaExpressing emotional development in the face of behavioral establishment adds a new level of depth.

This kind of psychological exploration of a character is what keeps me coming back to gaming.  The emphasis on character choice in N play highlights this, but it can and does enrich any style of play.  Well, I've found it to very much in sim--it's another level on which to aspire to verisimilitude.  How have people found it to mesh with Gamist play? Have they?

--Emily Care

I'm currently running a Multiverser campaign in forum play, and we've found that the player characters are all openly introspective in their posts. Some of them are very gamist players, others considerably more narrativist or simulationist (I haven't studied it closely, but that's my impression), yet all of them get into talking about what their character is thinking and feeling.  It will frequently happen that a character has to choose what to do, and the player will write an extended post weighing the options before stating a decision. Conflicted characters who do something against their better judgment, characters who are angry or amused or otherwise internally reacting to the situation, all this comes through the posts.

It occurs to me to mention it because one of our newer players posted a side thread to ask whether she was being too introspective, and nearly everyone else in the game said absolutely not--by all means, tell us what your character is thinking and feeling, because it makes the thread so much more interesting. The only caveat (I raised it) is when you're done telling us what you think and feel please also tell us what you do, because I can't very well have the world or characters react  to those thoughts and feelings--a long post which is solely introspective helps me a great deal*, but without action it leaves me wondering what to post in response.

*Particularly in Multiverser this is valuable, as a lot of world events are driven by the General Effects Roll, which is a randomized determination of whether things go the way the character wants them to go. In order to interpret GE rolls, I really have to have a pretty good handle on what the character hopes and fears in the situation at hand, so I can steer to the right balance based on the roll.

Thus even Gamist players have to let me into their characters' interior life, because things can't "go their way" if I don't know what "their way" is.

--M. J. Young