Protagonism and openness

[Gordon C. Landis]

Well, other than the simple idea of keeping the numbers low, another way to make splitting more palatable is to ensure that all the players are interested in all the characters. There are a few ways to do this, but two techniques come to mind. First, group charracter generation. That is, require the players to discuss their character concepts with each other, and to veto each other's ideas, essentially. That rarely actually happens, however, and what you get is people tossing ideas around until you get a group of nifty characters that everyone likes.

This relates to the second idea which is to require complete openness. That is, there should be no time that players aren't allowed to see "behind" the scenes of other players scenes. This goes against some players mode preferences, but if players can swallow it, it means that they can always appreciate the context of all the character's predicaments. This avoids those moments where something special happens, but only the player who has the character realizes it.

Essentially what I'm talking about is making the players into audience in all parts of play. Otherwise, they'll only pay attention to their own play, and ignore that of others leaving them bored. If you can make the experience of watching another player as good as, say, TV, for the other players, then they'll pay attention and be entertained even when it's not their character up on stage. And they'll appreciate the attention of the other players as well.

Mike

This post by Mike is over in the Party-based play thread, but where I wanted to go with it wasn't really party-based, so . . . . new thread.

I noticed something about protagonism (the flip side of "making the players into audience in all parts of play", right?) and the "always plays the same character" phenomena in a game last weekend.  Every now and then, you run into a guy who will only consider himself a "protagonist" if he manages to have a particular effect upon the audience (the other players) - and in order to have that effect, there has to be a "surprise" element.  To the players, not just the characters.

However, since as Mike points out openess is often what's needed to provide the context for others to care about the character - this player has set for himself a very difficult job.  He's removed the tool of openness from his protagonism-kit, but is still highly dependent upon a successful protagonization in order to get what he wants from play.

Even when he is able to play the character succesfully (as in, not stifled in his efforts as has been discussed before in the "same character" phenomena), he may not get what he wants/needs from the other players.  Even if the normal stifling mechanisms have been removed (maybe after years of effort), he'll still be left unfulfilled and wanting to play the charcater AGAIN - because the desired effect on the other players was not acheived.

And part of the cause of that is that he's made the quite legitimate (as far as I can tell) creative choice to NOT use the wonderfully effective tool of openness.

So - I wonder a few things.  First of all - why is surprise an important part of the effect to be acheived?  I mean, it may just be a thing desired in and of itself, in which case there's really not much more to say.  But - maybe the effect is actually about something else, and it's just that surprise is the tool that is THOUGHT to be required?  I can check into that a bit with the particular player, but I'm curious as to what others think - have you seen this phenomena?  Is it as simple as the player wanting surprise or did you find something else lurking beyond that?

And if all else fails - if you do have to restrict openness to allow for this play desire of surprise, how can you continue to foster protagonism/audience interest without that tool?

Gordon

[SFEley]

So - I wonder a few things.  First of all - why is surprise an important part of the effect to be acheived?  I mean, it may just be a thing desired in and of itself, in which case there's really not much more to say.  But - maybe the effect is actually about something else, and it's just that surprise is the tool that is THOUGHT to be required?  I can check into that a bit with the particular player, but I'm curious as to what others think - have you seen this phenomena?  Is it as simple as the player wanting surprise or did you find something else lurking beyond that?

First off, I think that surprise is almost always a Good Thing in dramatic entertainment.  Sure, it's possible to genuinely enjoy a book or movie when you can see the ending coming a mile off -- but it has to be really well done to stay fun, whereas even a mediocre production is often worth the price of admission if it keeps you guessing a little.  Surprise is fun, and it's easier to engage people that way than it is with richness of nuance and splendid adjectives.  In your player's case, he possibly tries to evoke surprise simply because it's definite reinforcement that someone else is paying attention.  Not necessarily bad if that's what he plays for, so long as it doesn't annoy everyone else.

That said, though, I don't believe that PCs keeping secrets is the only way to achieve good surprise.  It's one way, certainly -- the Troubled Past is one of the biggest cliches out there partly because it's easy and often interesting in spite of its cliche status.  Not to mention the Mole for the Enemy cliche, the Hidden Prince cliche, and all those other labyrinthine backstories.  But there's another way to surprise: by taking a creative turn in what comes next rather than what's already happened or what's going on behind the curtain.  One can simply do the unexpected, or show a spontaneous new aspect to a character everyone thought they understood.  Like Silent Bob suddenly speaking (in Clerks, anyway, before it became a gimmick.)  Do it badly or too often and it's just playing loony, but with the right sense of timing and drama it can really freshen things up.

Surprise is the essential effect of Improv.  Spontaneity and acceptance are the essential elements that make it happen.  I like this form of surprise -- "inspiration" surprise -- better than the backstory "revelation" kind you have to plan and manipulate for, because it doesn't require lots of work and it works in concert with other people's actions rather than independent of them.  You can do it with total openness, because you don't know any more about the surprise than anyone else does until it happens.

It's hard to say whether this is applicable to your situation without knowing more about your game and how this player operates, but it's food for thought.  It's up to you whether it'd make sense to suggest it to him as an alternative approach.  In any event, writing this helped me figure a couple things out, so if it helps you too that's just a bonus.  >8->

Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
  sfeley@sff.net

[Bankuei]

Hi Gordon,

Have you considered that surprising the players is a form of using the Ball in a meaningful manner?  Or to say it differently, a means of actual input into what happens?  I think when folks are conditioned into believeing that Story=Prescripted Plot= a set of events, hopefully "surprising", delivered by the GM, that having input into the story is simply a mamter of being able to deliver events or plot twists unknown to the players?

Of course, the second problem that comes up is that folks also are very much trained in many cases to just not SAY what they want, much like relationships were one person won't say how they feel, or why they're angry at the other, but still expect it to "just work out".  This tends to be a high area of dysfunction and no communication when it comes to gaming.

Chris

[Gordon C. Landis]

I like this form of surprise -- "inspiration" surprise -- better than the backstory "revelation" kind you have to plan and manipulate for, because it doesn't require lots of work and it works in concert with other people's actions rather than independent of them.  You can do it with total openness, because you don't know any more about the surprise than anyone else does until it happens.

It's hard to say whether this is applicable to your situation without knowing more about your game and how this player operates, but it's food for thought.  It's up to you whether it'd make sense to suggest it to him as an alternative approach.  In any event, writing this helped me figure a couple things out, so if it helps you too that's just a bonus.  

Hey, glad to help :)  But seriously, I do see something very interesting here - unfortunately, right now it's just another question.  Which is - what is *different* about the payoff of a backstory surprise vs. inspiration surprise, that might make a player prefer one over the other?  Because at the moment I'm pretty clear this player desperately wants his backstory surprise to . . .  wow?  amaze? the other players, and frankly I don't know how likely that is to happen - in large part because of the cliche-nature of just about any backstory surprise, as you mention.

Tiny bit of background here: I rarely GM of late - the fact that I ran this game, a highly improvisational self-design, is actually kinda a big deal - so much of what I'm thinking about here applies more to games in which I am also a player than the specific game I ran last weekend.  So I'll be talking to the other player about this in a more general sense, as while everyone had a surprisingly good time with the game I ran, we're not currently commited to continuing it.

Gordon

[Gordon C. Landis]

Chris,

Yeah, I think as a tool surprise can be all about the Ball, but I'm suspecting that this (and other aspects that relate to the running-player's perceived protagonism of their character) is more about an emotional impact on the other players than story/plot control, as such.  

Your second point brings up an angle certainly worth considering - that in fact this kind of desire for surprise is mostly a dysfunction of some sort.  I'm thinking it's likely not just that, but - good to have the unpleasant-but-possible explanation up on the table.

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

I almost took exception to Mike's statement on the other thread. I don't think that openness is essential to enjoyable split play (I recall that was the context). I think it is one tool that aids it, but I really don't think that players enjoy the game less because there are secrets.

I'm reminded of an Alyria game I'm running. One of the players is the villain, and another plays a young girl from the same village. The villain is known to be influential and powerful and respected in the community. At one point, the girl goes to confront him. In the midst of what she was saying, she said that her father was on that same village council that he was, so he shouldn't think he's all that powerful. Now, no one had ever said that there was a village council, or that her father was important, or even that her father was alive, or that the villain was on that. She invented it at that moment. It was good story; it fit well. I think everyone agreed that it was good. But how if she had decided after the previous session that it would be good for her character if her father was on the village council with the villain? Then she came to the game and just didn't tell us this new facet of the character until suddenly she spring it on everyone in play. Is that worse than if when we sat down she said, "hey, everyone, I've got a new aspect to my character, she's the daughter of a member of the council, and the villain is also a member of the council". I don't think so. I think it would have been wrong to reveal it at an appropriate moment in play regardless of when it was decided. Now, maybe we could have come up with something more interesting had we considered it. We could have said, even better, the girl, who is the most innocent and pure of all the characters in the game, is the niece or grandaughter or something of the villain. We didn't. The player surprised us with a good idea at that moment. Alyria lets you invent background like that on the fly, to a significant degree, and it works well.

There are ways to make the character more interesting through openness. In our Multiverser forum game, many of the players write their character's inner feelings and thoughts, concerns and problems, in their posts, and the other players say they particularly enjoy having this information as they watch the action unfold. There are also ways to make the story more interesting through unknown aspects of the character. I'm reading Ivanhoe to my sons, and I've noticed that quite a few of the characters are known to us only by their actions for quite some time--Ivanhoe himself wins two competitions in the tournament before his identity is revealed even to the reader, although it is hinted before that. Robin Hood and Friar Tuck make uncredited appearances early in the book, and King Richard is wandering around as a "black knight", that is, one who does not display his coat of arms or reveal his identity (I actually only know it is he because I was looking for information on Sir Walter Scott and came upon a brief synopsis of the book which stated that King Richard did certain things in the early part of the story which have been done by this black knight). Now, maybe when Scott wrote these weren't yet cliches. Or maybe a bit of mystery in a character can make the character interesting.

I'm reminded that E. R. Jones used something in his D&D play he called http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/ref005.html">Mystery Options. These were aspects of the character which were unknown even to the player who played them. If you wished, you could at character creation roll dice to determine the number and depth of these unknown details, which then would be discovered during play. Players loved the idea, and it made for great plot hooks and adventure ideas. We wondered what things our characters did not know about themselves, and also what things our characters' companions didn't know about themselves.

So secrecy is still a fair way to make interesting characters. In some adventure types, such as the whodunit, it's essential, and it's supportive of a lot of gamist play possibilities.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

I actually advocated the use of secrecy on another thread. So am I being ambiguous? Let me clarify.

The player doesn't have to be all open all the time. He merely has to be open enough that the players have a context to the action. For example, if a character does have a secret, it's often very cool to let on that there is some secret, and maybe a bit of what it's about. So that the players can enjoy the developing story around it. And so that when it is revealed, other players are not merely shocked, but also entertained by the change in the meanings of the prior context.

Which is to say that if the other players are not watching, and then the secret comes out, it's just confusing ("Wha? Ragnar the Slayer is a woman? Wha?"). Instead, better to have the players wondering what the secret is.

So, for example, you have two options in some scenes that regard secrets. You can hide them entirely from the players (passed notes come to mind, and walks into the kitchen with just the GM and player; nothing less interesting for the other players), or you can carefully reveal. This is the secret of the game SOAP. Let the GM know what's a secret for your character (see Fang's notes on "Mystiques"), so that he doesn't blow it, but still play around the subject in the open. So with Ragnar, play out that scene in which she confronts an old lover like so.

GM: Vramir appraches Ragnar with a strange look on his face.
Player: Ragnar looks about uncomfortably.
GM: "What are you doing here, looking like that, Ragnar?"
Player: "None of your business, Vramir."
GM: "Don't worry, I won't spill your little secret...assuming you meet me in my room tonight for a little 'business'."
Player: "Tell anyone, and I'll gut you," and Ragnar puts a dagger at Vramir's throat.
GM: "OK, OK, you win, Ragnar...this time..." Vramir exits the bar with a look over his shoulder back at Ragnar.

The players still have no idea what's going on, but they are aware that there's something happening that's worth watching now wondering what this new enemy is all about. There is now suspense built up around the scene. And when the truth gets revealed, the players will look back at the scene above and say, "Ahhh, he was trying to blackmail her for sex!"

So, basically, pick and choose what to hide carefully, and play open with the rest.

Another good example is the theif. When he steals from the rest of the party, do you play it secret, or do you play it in the open? If you do it secretly, then it's a surprise when the other players find the pilfered goods have gone missing. Of course, however, they will then query the GM about getting the stuff back. If the GM isn't forthcoming with leads, then the player will automatically suspect the "usual suspect".

So does the player just let it go, playing in character and assuming that the thief gets away with it? Or does the player go after the thief character using a rationale that his character is smart, and would figure out that it was the thief? The problem with the first is that it becomes a non-event for the player. The problem with the second is that, apparently we're playing Sim, and the player just used player knowledge in a potentially upsetting way. Actually really good players can do it well, but on the whole you tend to lose player attention in these sorts of circumstances.

OTOH, if you narrate the theft in the open, then the other players are informed that you are doing them the service of letting them in on the plot behind the scenes, and they'll do the same in return. You signal to the other player that you don't mind if their character comes after yours, as long as they engineer the scene appropriately. Or they can remain oblivious as long as they like allowing the fact of the theft to hang in the air between the characters. Imagine if the player with the character who had been stolen from instead played his character as becoming a good, trusted friend of the thief. Now, there's a whole new issue of guilt (my favorite weapon). :-)

So, again, assuming that you're not playing strictly Sim in terms of player knowledge, I'd go as open as possible on these sorts of things. I think that teh sort fo Sim play that tries to match player and cahracter knowledge strictly is what causes players to be bored when the party splits. Basically it's like playing a first person shooter game, but you have to take turns, and you see little to nothing of the action when it's not your turn.

I think this may be why the best Sim designs are mission based, requiring the party mode, and giving a plausible reason for it.

Mike

[Piers]

But how if she had decided after the previous session that it would be good for her character if her father was on the village council with the villain? Then she came to the game and just didn't tell us this new facet of the character until suddenly she spring it on everyone in play. Is that worse than if when we sat down she said, "hey, everyone, I've got a new aspect to my character, she's the daughter of a member of the council, and the villain is also a member of the council". I don't think so. I think it would have been wrong to reveal it at an appropriate moment in play regardless of when it was decided.

I both agree and disagree.  Let me explain:

M.J.'s description above suggests one of the ways in which having a secret is actually not like making up something on the fly.  As Mike points out, the act of signalling that there is a secret allows other players to play to and around the idea even if they aren't necessarily aware of exactly what's going on.  In other words, it permits a sort of consensus amongst the group.  

Holding a secret, a secret in particular that the character is acting upon becomes problematic when it harms the continuing formation of consensus amongst the group.  For instance, if the character in the example above decides she has a father and that he is on the council and acts on this (secret) information, this may produce difficulties later if, for instance, the other players decide collectively that that isn't what is going on.  Even if everyone is generous about not blocking others ideas, there is the potential for conflict if two secret conceptions of the consensual reality conflict.  

Making up parts of a setting on the fly is fundamentally different from the act of secret creation because it insists on group consensus before characters begin to act on any proposed feature of the setting/plot/character.  The explicit signalling of secrets that Mike describes is a way of establishing some provisional consensus before the revelation of new material, and also of warning off others from creating conflicting material for the game.  

In the end, if the both the game system and the conduct of play are about, per the lumpley principle, extablishing consensus about what is and what happens, secrets have to be carefully accomodated because of the danger they pose to the consensus upon which the game is founded.  

Piers

[Lance D. Allen]

It seems to me that in cases like what is mentioned with the PC's father and the villain on the same council that this is one of the functions of the GM, if the game has one. The GM's job is in many cases to keep things consistent. They are the keeper of all PC secrets (leastwise those that effect the game world.. if a player wants to keep the secret that their PC is female from even the GM until the point of revelation, that's up to them, I suppose, though from experience this can be awkward.)

It's similar to a consensual FFRP setting. Everyone is free to contribute either overtly or covertly, but there are a certain few who, by general consensus, are in charge. They get approving authority on anything that might clash with an existing element, or someone else's "secret" canon information.

[Piers]

It seems to me that in cases like what is mentioned with the PC's father and the villain on the same council that this is one of the functions of the GM, if the game has one. The GM's job is in many cases to keep things consistent.

Absolutely.  In a conventional game that's exactly what the GM is for.  However, the more a game moves away from that model, the more this becomes a concern.  The narrative power available in Alyria, for example, and the sort of shared creation that it is founded on, means that such an approach might not necessarily work, though it is one way to accomodate the use of secrets.  

Piers

[Gordon C. Landis]

Thanks all - some great stuff here about various strategies around various types of secrets. I'll be talking with the particular player in my group soon, and y'all have provided some good insights, so thanks again.  

I'm still a bit curious about the variety of possible reasons behind the desire for a background-type secret - is it an author-power thing, where being in control of the secret gives the player the authorial muscle-flexing they want?  Or is it more of a social reward, where the player gets GM-like thrill from showing something to the other players?  I'm sure it *can* be all this and more, in various combinations, so - if there's more to say, I'm still reading :-)

Gordon

[jrs]

Gordon,

I suspect that you are right in suggesting that the appeal of a background secret is in the control that player can wield in-game, either in explaining motives or surprising the other players. Following on what others have stated above, it makes me wonder if this particular phenomenon develops when players are not encouraged to utilize stances other than actor stance.  The background secret becomes tied to chargen, and impromptu oportunities for surprise are not recognized as within the player's control.  

The only other explanation that comes to mind is the use of surprise as a visceral attempt to represent a character's internal conflict with respect to the situation that prompts the revelation.  

Julie

[Emily Care]

I'm still a bit curious about the variety of possible reasons behind the desire for a background-type secret

Having a secret also focuses attention on the character. So it may be a spotlight issue as well.

--EC