Relationship Maps and Bangs

[Eric]

Hello --

From searching around the forum here, apparently the "rules" for Relationship maps and Bangs are in Soul and in Sword respectively.  Since I'm currently waiting for Sword and Soul is a ways off, is there a thread or an article lying about that lays out the "rules" for these things?

I've been through the threads here in Forge that come up when you seach for those terms, but they all seem to be discussions of the "rules" rather than the actual "rules" themselves.

-- Eric, hoping that made some sense . . .

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

You make plenty of sense. Nothing wrong with these questions.

BANGS
are actually defined in the main Sorcerer rules, in Chapter 4. They may be thought of as the GM saying, "This happens," to open a scene or to alter it. Their precise role is to put the player-characters into a moment of decision. Part of playing Sorcerer is based on the GM reserving most "input" for Bangs.

Bangs get discussed in some more detail in Sword, especially regarding how they may be applied to information, violence, or even geography.

A little thought will reveal that the Kicker may be considered the first Bang, and thus in many ways the GM's role as player-facilitator (rather than primary author) is being reinforced by the Kicker.

RELATIONSHIP MAPS
are defined and presented in Soul, and they are also briefly discussed in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=831&forum=4&12">relationship maps and all that jazz in the RPG Theory forum as well as http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=224&forum=7&15">Relationship maps in the Sorcerer forum.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Eric,

I've been told that the Gaming Outpost forums are free again (if you can tolerate strobing banner ads and three or four popups per page). Ron basically gives away the whole meat of relationship mapping in a few threads in the Sorcerer forum over there.

Check out http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowThread&threadID=33129&messageID=33129&forumID=28&CustomSS=0&login=">Practical Relationship Mapping, http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowThread&threadID=34313&messageID=34313&forumID=28&CustomSS=0&login=">Humanity and Relationship Maps, http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowThread&threadID=32103&messageID=32103&forumID=28&CustomSS=0&login=">Paretsky and Relationship Maps, and http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowThread&threadID=39447&messageID=39447&forumID=28&CustomSS=0&login=">Hammett and Relationship Maps.

Paul

[jburneko]

Hello,

I hope I'm not hijacking this thread but after rereading some of the old Gaming Outpost threads some old thoughts had resurfaced that I don't think were ever addressed to my satisfaction.  Perhaps, they can not be addressed to my satisfaction or maybe they just come down to difference of preference or opinion.  In any event I'd like to take another crack at them.

First of all, it is obvious to all that the design of Sorcerer and indeed Narrativist thinking in general is geared towords fasciliting player characters as true protagonists.  To keep the stories ABOUT the characters and not about NPCs or a specific McGuffin or anything like that.

To this end Ron asserts in one of the Gaming Outpost threads that a Sorcerer game should not be about the relationship map.  Instead the relationship map is simply there to fascilite a plot that is indeed about the protagonist.  I'm cool with this concept.

In another thread Ron mentions that he enjoys older detective fiction more than modern detective fiction because it goes into tremendous detail concerning the protagonists personal life.  At least, I think this is what he was saying.  And this is where I start to get confused.

It seems to me that the NEWER fiction not the OLDER fiction shifts the focus from the relationship map to the actual protagonists.  Now, I'm from the, "you can learn a lot about a person from the books on their shelves" school of thought so lots of details in a book about a character's choice of shoes and what they eat give insight into who that person IS.  But more importantly the thread in question seemed to suggest that focus on the characters daily conflicts such as their personal relationships or work problems etc was also a "step in the wrong direction", I use that phrase VERY loosely.

The OLDER fiction to me, seems to be a great deal less ABOUT the protagonist and a great deal MORE about the relationship map.  Since we know nothing of Lew Archer or Sam Spade, so all the reader can focus on is the characters that ARE fleshed out, namely, the characters in the relationship map.  It seems to me that these detective figures are motivated only by curiosity, or some sense of obligation.  The conflicts are NOT centered around the protagonists and really their only function in the novel is to reveal the real 'meat' of the story which is the going ons in the relationship map.  But personal conflict is non-existant.  I really don't see a difference between Lew Archer and the average D&D hero who comes in to save the land from the 'great evil' with no other motivation than, 'that's what heroes do.'

Now, perhaps as a role-playing aid this is ideal because after all the idea is to strip out the original 'protagonist' something that can be done with ease in the older fiction for the very reason's I outlined.  But as examples of protagonists I still find detective fiction quite lacking.

Jesse

Edited because I seem to have an inability to spell my name correctly. :smile:



[ This Message was edited by: jburneko on 2001-12-20 14:01 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

I think you're bringing up quite a few points all at once, so I'll try to sort them out a little for myself.

First, I think you may be misreading me here:
In another thread Ron mentions that he enjoys older detective fiction more than modern detective fiction because it goes into tremendous detail concerning the protagonists personal life. At least, I think this is what he was saying. And this is where I start to get confused.

I can't tell whether the word "it" in your sentence refers to the newer or the older fiction. My claim is that the newer gumshoe/detective fiction goes into more detail about the main character's day-to-day, personal life. Older (less detail) = Philip Marlowe, Lew Archer. Newer (more detail) = V.I. Warshawski, Spenser, the latter to an unreadable degree.

Second is the issue surrounding whether that difference stated above is "good" or not. In order to address that, let's focus on what the difference really is, because I think you're mixing two things into it.

A) The details and moment-to-moment emotional changes, which is what I'm referring to. It also includes extended monologues or rants about general or political issues (Travis McGee is probably the main example for the rants part). So, I'm talking about the sequences in which Hawk and Spenser go work out in the middle of a story, and we learn about how much they bench and share in their musings about masculinity. Jim Henley and I made some fun of this at one point in the Sorcerer forum.

B) The emotional engagement of the detective in the situation itself. We have discussed this by private email, and I maintain that the writing style of the time revealed such engagement specifically through action and person-to-person dialogue, without exposition or clarification for the reader. Thus I perceive Lew Archer to be extremely engaged and motivated in the MacDonald novels, whereas you see him as faceless and uninvolved.

So therefore we should really focus on just what's to be discussed. In the threads you're referring to, I am stating that the increased amount of (A) detracts from the power, effectiveness, Premise, Theme, and what-have-you of the story. I also think that (B) is an entirely separate issue.

Best,
Ron

[Tor Erickson]

Hi Jesse,

I had a similar question over at GO, in the Sorcerer forum (I think it was called "Hammett and relationship maps").  I see the apparent contradiction that you're getting at: why does Ron support older forms of detective fiction that tend to focus more on the relationship map than on the protagonist, when narrativism is about the protagonists, right?

Well, my thought is this.  Even though Chandler and Macdonald (or even Hammett) tend not to develop their protagonists in a "and his shoes were light brown, and slightly scuffed from the gardening he had been doing that morning" way, they are still the most powerful force for commentary in the books.  Marlowe is something of a rock (much like Gordon here at the Forge), unchanging in his world view but offering some serious perspective on the relationship map and the goings on.  Try to think of the books without a character like Archer or Marlowe.  You'd be adrift in a sea of immorality and insanity, with no moral hardpoint to latch on to, everything relative and blurred.  The protagonists in these books provide the focus.

Also, my favorite detective fiction is the Easy Rawlins stuff, where the most interesting things going on are all taking place in Easy's life.  I'll usually get towards the end of the book, instantly forget about the entire relationship map and ask "Now what the heck is he going to do about Mouse?" or "Will things work out with his kid or not?"  

Tor

[Blake Hutchins]

As has been touched on in another thread, the writing style of the time extended IMO to much of the sword and sorcery Ron references in his Sword bibliography.  No reason mini-relationship maps from those stories couldn't be used in generating Sword stories.

Best,

Blake

[Blake Hutchins]

Expanding a bit on this thread's topic, I've been using Chandler's Lady in the Lake for a relationship map template, and found it works well (warning: this is in the context of conceptualization only, not tested by actual play) for virtually any game, from Sorcerer to Tribe 8.  It occurs to me that a library of relationship map templates will be my primary game aid in the coming years.  Helps greatly if you've read the books, of course.  Still, sharing templates might be a great feature for the Sorcerer website.

Thoughts?

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-12-20 14:27 ]

[Eric]

Ron and Paul --

Thanks for the pointers.  I didn't know that GO was free again.  Have to go browse around somewhere besides the forums one of these lunch hours.

Anyway, my eyes hurt, but I think I've got an understanding of relationship maps.  Going to be interesting to try to implement.

Ron, sorry I missed the Bangs n the core book.  I looked for RM's in the index, but didn't check on Bangs.  It has been that sort of week.

-- Eric, who has felt like it was Friday for three days now . . .