The Forge Archives

Cruciel wrote:

'why does the player think this is what the character would really do?'

One possible answer: Because it displays the maximal degree of logical consistency with previous decisions made by the character and the description of the character previously written down. If that's not Sim, I don't know what is.

Another possible answer: Because it's what, given the player's overall sense of what the character is like as a functioning element within a narrative whole, would best address premise, or carry the story they're using the character to make forward in the coolest way, or whatever. Narrativism.

Probably lots of people think that they're choosing on the first ground when they're actually choosing on the second. Maybe this is because they think choosing on the second ground is somehow less reputable, even though many of them would have/are having way more fun when they choose that way. Maybe in turn they think that because they were taught mistakenly that (1) was the 'right' way to role-play. All that may well be true, but it doesn't mean the first decision-type doesn't exist.

I'm weighing in with Sean here.

I agree with Jack that this deep exploration of character is one of the typical hallmarks of narrativism, but I think it goes to far to say that it is narrativism, and Sean is right that it goes too far in both directions.

Exploration of character, beyond mere characterization, is quite possible in simulationist play; you can play a game that is entirely about figuring out who this character really is. Play a slaveholder in the antebellum South just to understand slavery from that perspective, and go deeply into his beliefs, motives, and understandings, and you're doing exploration--discovering what this kind of person was like. If you don't go beyond that to attempt to deal with the morality of the situation, you're probably never getting narrativist, even if some of your choices look a little like that and a theme emerges.

Meanwhile, addressing premise can happen in a game in which there are no characters to explore--I'd wager a well-crafted game of Universalis could be built around a premise without ever having anyone explore any character in any depth or detail. I can imagine play in an antebellum setting in which the "character" elements are all political and social and other collective entities struggling over the status of the slaves, in which there is never one single individual who matters to the created events, and yet very deep questions about slavery are asked and answered through play. (Caveat: I've not played it, so I'm going by what I've read.)

Character exploration is a red herring.

--M. J. Young

I agree with Jack: for Narrativist play to happen at all, the characters absolutely must do what they would do.  Violating your character's integrity, no matter how cool, can't address Premise but only sabotage it.

A variable missing from this conversation so far is: which character?

I propose that Narrativist play depends on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of the right characters, where "right" means hooked into conflict across the moral line of your Premise.  

A Sim game, then, might be based on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of characters who aren't hooked into any such conflict.

("Full" in full-integrity etc. means "to whatever degree is appropriate for your particular game.")

Potentially, you could build a Narrativist game on the strength of its character creation rules alone.  

The Dying Earth, it seems to me, is a case where the bulk of the conflict / moral line / Premise stuff lives in the Setting, not the characters - but the characters absolutely have to be hooked into it for Narrativist play.

-Vincent

Quote from: M. J. YoungExploration of character, beyond mere characterization, is quite possible in simulationist play; you can play a game that is entirely about figuring out who this character really is. Play a slaveholder in the antebellum South just to understand slavery from that perspective, and go deeply into his beliefs, motives, and understandings, and you're doing exploration--discovering what this kind of person was like. If you don't go beyond that to attempt to deal with the morality of the situation, you're probably never getting narrativist, even if some of your choices look a little like that and a theme emerges.

Looking at the slaveholder, now how do you get into his beliefs, motives and understandings? You could listen to what he has to say. Heck, you could even go into his head and thoughts, but this stuff is not deep character either. Why? Because there's no pressure. The pressure is essential. Beliefs untested are not addressing premise.

Quote from: James 2:18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

QuoteMeanwhile, addressing premise can happen in a game in which there are no characters to explore--I'd wager a well-crafted game of Universalis could be built around a premise without ever having anyone explore any character in any depth or detail. I can imagine play in an antebellum setting in which the "character" elements are all political and social and other collective entities struggling over the status of the slaves, in which there is never one single individual who matters to the created events, and yet very deep questions about slavery are asked and answered through play. (Caveat: I've not played it, so I'm going by what I've read.)

Well, in that case you're dealing with multi-character or plural protagonist. As such the entire society acts as a single protagonist, but is a large group. And you can still reach the deep character of these large groups but doing so would still be in the somewhat odd way the whole of play would transpire. A story about republicans and democrats, for instance, would not go like "The republicans went to the story. In the frozen food sections they met the democrats." It just couldn't go the way a story about Sam and Judy would. But I could still see deep character coming out. The deep character of a society.

Quote from: SeanCruciel wrote:

'why does the player think this is what the character would really do?'

One possible answer: Because it displays the maximal degree of logical consistency with previous decisions made by the character and the description of the character previously written down. If that's not Sim, I don't know what is.

But where does this begin?  What about the very first instance where the player has to make a decision based on what the character would do, right there he is creating the characters premise, deciding what this character believes and how they react to moral situations is a huge part of what the character is about.  If an instance of play brings up questions about who the character is, and the player is free to decide how the character will act, then that instance of play is narrativism in action.  

Now if play in general doesnt revolve around those choices and this element of play is no more interesting to the players than exploring the setting, than the game itself can be sim.

Hey, Vincent

I a little fuzzy by what you mean by "right character" Would you mind dumbing it down a shade for me? ;)

Hello,

Exploration of Character is Narrativist play ... if you're committed to that mode of play. Which makes the argument, as far as I'm concerned, rather circular.

The only thing that changes that in your discussion, Jack, is your use of the terms "deep" and "true," which sound like value judgments to me and not especially useful for making a point. Why can't a fully Simulationist play-experience be "deep" and "true?"

Note that I'm speaking very far from my own preferences, because experientially I agree with you. But me-the-experiencer (and typically pretty Narrativist-biased) isn't me-the-thinker. The thinker says, "Jack is stating his preferences" and that's that.

Also, I discuss The Dying Earth and the sources of Premise for playing it in the Narrativism essay; I'm not sure why people are confused about that here in this thread. I consider Premise in playing this game (with all provisos about texts vs. play) to arise from Situation.

Sean, you and I discussed this at length at RPG.net as well.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe only thing that changes that in your discussion, Jack, is your use of the terms "deep" and "true," which sound like value judgments to me and not especially useful for making a point. Why can't a fully Simulationist play-experience be "deep" and "true?"

The reason for the confusion here, and probably the bone of contention that Sean and MJ have is that by calling it "deep" and "true" character sounds like a value judgement, when it is not. It is a descriptive term. It's character in terms of "it will build character" like Calvin's father would always say when his son complained in "Calvin and Hobbes." Those times  be unpleasant things, like sleeping in the cold outdoors while camping and such.

The reason why I started this thread is because re-reading McKee I notice his principles for story creation seemed to vary slightly. He still had premise although he calls it the Controlling Idea for two reasons: 1) he find this term a better description of the function 2) he calls the "what if" statement which is part of the initial inspiration for a story premise, as in "the premise of Die Hard is 'What if some high oragnized, skilled, and motivated terrorist take over a building but there's a cop in the building and he manages to escape the initial hostage round-up and becomes a fly in these very determined people's ointment and, get this, he barefooted." This BTW is a usage on the term premise I've more often heard, hence my initial confusion over the term. But I digress.

McKee has premise or controling idea but he doesn't emphasis it as much as turning points, moments when the character must make decisions between irreconsilable goods. This suggests to me that the real meat of it lies in the true character. That is, the part of character that is only visible when you are addressing premiseor controlling idea

Premise through Situation - right. Those discussions were very confusing to me, Ron - I felt like I saw something that you understood, but I couldn't quite grasp your explanations in that particular case. I think I've got it now though.

Jack, have you read Universalis? I think MJ is right in the sense that that's about the clearest example I can think of where a game could be Narrativist from the get-go without any special emphasis on exploration of character. Dying Earth is a harder example, though I think it's a good one too.

On the flip side, I think that a player could be interested in having a character morally challenged, in having their character's Character explored in a very deep way, without being interested in the story or addressing of Premise coming out of it. This is the hard-core fringe of Simulationist Exploration of Character, Immersive Exploration for its own sake.

Vincent, I guess I can't really agree with you, though what you're saying is true under some interpretations. Let's say that relative to any given situation, there are some actions that are demanded of a particular character given what is known about him or her, some that are ruled out, and a middle set that are optional. In the case of actions that are demanded or ruled out in a strong way, virtually all games, even some of those with a Gamist creative agenda, are going to get messed up a little bit when players go against them. This is because they damage the shared imaginative space in which the creative agenda is being worked out.

But what about that middle set, where you have multiple choices that are consistent with a character, but none necessarily mandated by it?

The Gamist choice is the one that best facilitates Stepping On Up;

Some Simulationists will sit back, think even harder about the character, setting, etc., until they really feel like they know the right thing for the character to do. In thinking this way they are trying to narrow the action space by pushing some of the choices - all of which seemed prima facie consistent with the character - into the 'demanded' or 'ruled out' boxes, and make their choice that way.

Whereas I think a Narrativist will sit back, contemplate their character within the broader arc of the story, consider how they want their character to address premise in that situation, and choose that way.

I think this has a mirror in real life too. Sometimes you take a job because it's the job that best fits you and your nature and desires; sometimes you take a job because it's one that will improve your social standing and resources; and sometimes you take a job because you think you'll be a cooler or more interesting person, or because you think it would be a morally good thing to do to work that job.  In the second two cases, we sometimes tend to think the person who doesn't consider their own nature and desires at all is either 'selling out' or 'not being realistic'; but of course not all jobs chosen for reasons of coolness or moral idealism are unrealistic choices for the person in question, and not all jobs that make us more powerful and respected constitute selling out either. In the first case, you're sticking to your guns, trying to be who you think you already are, no matter what; in the other two cases, when those choices are made responsibly, you're deciding that who you are fits the choice well enough that you can satisfy those other values as well. Sometimes this works out great, other times it fails: in all three cases, you grow and change through the decision, and find out better who you are in the process.

"Egotism leads to loss of friends", Egri's example of a premise, not a statement of morality but about character.  So yes exploration of character leads to narrativism but I do see a little hole for left for Sean's position in here.  If we turn that statement into a question, Does egotism lead to loss of friends?, it is looking for a specific outcome the loss of friends.  A simulationists question in his exploration of the same character would be what does egotism lead to?

There is a subtle difference there , so subtle I'm not sure they really say different things once play focuses the question on situation.  Both have chosen egotism as the focus of their question, and since the premise need not be worked out in advance neither is limited to a specific outcome in actual play.

Ron - the Dying Earth example from the Nar essay didn't stand out to me at the time because I wasn't familiar with the Dying Earth RPG.  But now that I look at it, I don't see what makes it Narrativist.  Below is the section you quote from the game:

QuoteMany Dying Earth stories revolve around a closed community, which may be either a small settlement or an isolated workplace. In its isolation, it has developed its own highly-structured, sometimes legalistic, always peculiar rules. Without outside influence, and with the stout enforcement of its codes, the group has survived for a long time. When the protagonist arrives, the locals try to enforce the rules on him, assimilating him into their bizarre system. Instead, the hero ... takes action which utterly disrupts the delicately-balanced harmony of the community. ... the community, the basis of its rules destroyed, collapses.

[now for play]

When creating an adventure, dream up a bizarre rule or activity on which a community's existence depends. Figure out at least one way in which the PCs could wreak havoc on the community by disrupting the activity or subverting the rule.

Then create a reason for the PCs to do so ... [actually, the entire character creation process for this game takes care of this detail - RE]

So bearing in mind that I don't have DE RPG, this quote seems to me to be GNS Simulationist, specifically Participationist.  The theme of the story is pre-prepared: the hero will wreak havok on the community.  This may happen in many different ways, and the players will all have a hand in this.  However, I don't see moral choice on the part of the players.  A Narrativist premise might be "Should I let this community survive or wreak havoc on it?"  But here it seems a given that the PCs will do so.  

Quote from: lumpleyI agree with Jack: for Narrativist play to happen at all, the characters absolutely must do what they would do.  Violating your character's integrity, no matter how cool, can't address Premise but only sabotage it.

A variable missing from this conversation so far is: which character?

I propose that Narrativist play depends on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of the right characters, where "right" means hooked into conflict across the moral line of your Premise.

The phrasing here implies that the Premise is decided on prior to the characters.  i.e. So since you have a defined Premise, then you have to make sure that you have the right characters to address that Premise.  However, that is a self-imposed limitation.  You can instead come up with the character first.  Then you come up with adventures which will deeply probe the character.  What your Premise is derives from character, rather than vice-versa.  

Quote from: lumpleyA Sim game, then, might be based on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of characters who aren't hooked into any such conflict.

If there isn't any internal conflict -- if there aren't any hard questions to be answered -- then there isn't exploration of character.  Nothing more is being learned about who that character is.  Maybe the player can fill in the hair color or shoe size during the game session -- but without that conflict, play itself serves no function in the exploration of character.  Instead, play is just repeating over and over the same fixed definition of the character.  No new territory is being explored.

Hello,

Maybe I should clarify: guys, make up your own minds about playing The Dying Earth. There's really not much point to justifying my thoughts about it; you know that what I think is not sacred.

The point is not whether DE is or isn't Narrativist-facilitating. The point is whether Narrativist play is or isn't about Exploration of Character per se.

I don't see much meat in it, so I'll just sit back and let everyone else reveal what I'm missing.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: SeanJack, have you read Universalis? I think MJ is right in the sense that that's about the clearest example I can think of where a game could be Narrativist from the get-go without any special emphasis on exploration of character.

I have it around here somewhere. But then, I had already addressed MJ's example. I don't think it contridicts my original statement at all.

QuoteOn the flip side, I think that a player could be interested in having a character morally challenged, in having their character's Character explored in a very deep way, without being interested in the story or addressing of Premise coming out of it. This is the hard-core fringe of Simulationist Exploration of Character, Immersive Exploration for its own sake.

For some reason, this is a sticking point. I don't know why nor how I can phrase an answer to satisfy.

If you prioritize the exploration of deep character, you will address premise. Being interested or not is not an issue. The premise is still there being addressed. It need not be conciously addressed or even conciously known, but it is still present. Therefore, prioritized exploration of deep character is narrativist play.

I agree with Ron, and personally feel that nothing interesting has been said here.

Mike

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr

Quote from: M. J. YoungExploration of character, beyond mere characterization, is quite possible in simulationist play; you can play a game that is entirely about figuring out who this character really is. Play a slaveholder in the antebellum South just to understand slavery from that perspective, and go deeply into his beliefs, motives, and understandings, and you're doing exploration--discovering what this kind of person was like. If you don't go beyond that to attempt to deal with the morality of the situation, you're probably never getting narrativist, even if some of your choices look a little like that and a theme emerges.

Looking at the slaveholder, now how do you get into his beliefs, motives and understandings? You could listen to what he has to say. Heck, you could even go into his head and thoughts, but this stuff is not deep character either. Why? Because there's no pressure. The pressure is essential. Beliefs untested are not addressing premise.

[*]Ah, but we aren't talking about addressing premise; we're talking about exploring character, and trying to explore that character deeply. Of course, if you're going to say that if you use exploration of character to address premise, you're doing narrativism, that's not arguable; we're objecting to two other points that you seem to be making:[list=1][*]If you're doing deep exploration of character, you are necessarily addressing premise, and therefore doing narrativism; and[*]If you are addressing premise, you must be doing so by deep exploration of character.[/list:u]Those points are objectionable.[*]Just because you're applying pressure and making choices to explore character more deeply does not mean you are addressing premise. You could create a conflicted situation merely to consider how this character would act. Suppose a slave boy who was your character's primary playmate growing up runs away; that could be fraught with premise, but it could be merely a way of digging into who this character is and how he thinks and why he does what he does.

What makes it narrativism is that the players care about the premise; what makes it simulationism is that the players care about the information. (What makes it gamism is that the players care about personal performance.)[/list:o]
No matter how deeply you explore it, exploration of character and narrativism are not equivalents. Exploration of character is one very powerful way of getting into narrativism, but it is not the only way in, and it does not inevitably lead there.

--M. J. Young