Narrativism, the juicy parts of the system and Risk

[pete_darby]

MJ:

Yes, after all I said, my preferred systems tend towards the low ranges of character mortality (pace Paranoia). I guess it's my narrativist tendencies showing, that whether the character's choosing life or death, the choice means something, and that the player is still involved to see the consequences of that choice, the payoff,  whatever that choice is. Since most games revolve around a degree of character indentification, if the PC's dead, the player is "out of the game", and doesn't get involved with the creamy goodness resulting from the choice if death is the choice.

Jack:

This sort of play puzzles me, really. Why play an adventure game if you're going to avoid adventure at every turn? I just don't get it although I have played this way way too often and it may be part of the reason I am angry and bitter over my hobby.

I'm a little confused: are you talking as player or GM here?

As a GM, are you setting up "hard choices" for the PC's who then always take the easy choice? Kobyashi Maru the bastards, I say.

If it's as a player, is it becuase character death excludes you as a player from play to an extent that you tactically play it safe to remain in the game, while that tactical decision frustrates the expression of your other expectations of play?

[Storn]

In our games, Neil and I try to run our characters as if they were living, breathing people.  Putting yourself in harm's way is the perview of the desperate, the stupid, the adrenline junkies and the unfortunate.

In other words, we believe that being an adventurer... there definitely has to be something wrong with you.  If just that you are often unlucky.  Being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most soldiers do NOT go and court death.  They work hard to avoid it.  It is why I can't stand dungeon crawls.  It makes absolutely no sense to me.  If I have the skill set of a professional soldier or crafty mage, I can get work that doesn't have such a high attrition.

So, in our games, the GM must really provide justification and situations that makes the PC go "Okay, got to do something and get this done".  That is why my game is very poltical, very geo-power oriented.  Adventure happens as Policy is carried out.  It is why Neil operates in SuperHeroes.... you gotta be a bit nuts and driven to put on spandex and go out there and fight crime!

So, it is not MY aversion to Risk that might cause my PC to avoid danger.  It is the PC.  To me, putting the PC in danger IS fun.  It makes for good story, especially if there is really good justifications and motivations zinging around.  But sometimes a PC speaks on their own behalf.

I know that GNS states that there is no difference between PC and Player.  But this is where I and GNS part company.  I do think there is a difference.  I THINK and FEEL different when playing different characters.  Quite similar to thinking in another language compared to your native language.

Not that I relish losing beloved characters.  But it is that challenge of keeping them alive and keeping their stories going that makes some of the fun for me.

[Alan]

So, in our games, the GM must really provide justification and situations that makes the PC go "Okay, got to do something and get this done".  

Have the players also made efforts to provide justification and suggest situations that would motivate their characters to adventure?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

If it's as a player, is it becuase character death excludes you as a player from play to an extent that you tactically play it safe to remain in the game, while that tactical decision frustrates the expression of your other expectations of play?

AS a player...and that's a good argument to remove character death from the equation if it really is beside the point.

[RDU Neil]

Have the players also made efforts to provide justification and suggest situations that would motivate their characters to adventure?

As a player occasionally in Storn's game, and the main GM the rest of the time... I'd have to say "Yes... much of the time, but not always."

In my 17 year running Supers campaign, the level of player interaction with the world... the proactive nature of the characters, the depth of understanding of the big picture of the RDU Universe... this really allowed the PCs (whether long term, powerful metahumans, or fresh faced newbie characters) to act on their own agendas, and actively look to shape their environment by their actions.  It could be something as simple as setting up a meeting to discuss trade... or it could be as overt as assembling an army of metahumans to attack China.  The world events are going on, and the players decide how their characters will get involved, stay out of it, create their own policies and world movements, etc.

It happens in some games I play in Storn's long running fantasy world, as well.  I will drive policies and social actions through my Baron character, because I can.

In all these cases, though, I think two things are required for effective player proaction.   One, an in depth, long term exposure to the "world" that the GM initiated (comfort level/depth of knowledge and history of the world) and two, at least a few sessions running the character, so that the personality and "place' of the character has some grounding.

Essentially, though we've never stated it as such, I think our group requires players to EARN director/author stance.  (Not sure of the difference between the two.)  In my current, new campaign, even though most of the players and I have been gaming together for years... there is a much greater tendency for reactive play, waiting for the GM to provide tactical situations for the characters to deal with... and the director stance, the strategic thinking, and player proaction isn't there yet.  If the game succeeds for a while, I think we will begin to see more of it, but I'm pretty sure that our groups Social Contract implies "let the GM run things for a while, before you stick your nose in too much."   After time, though, the players become more and more active in story development, because they have an established base with which to work.

That is just my take on it, though.

[Rob Carriere]

Jack,
Thanks for clarifying. I completely agree that hiding in the wings all the time wouldn't be my idea of a good game either. As you say, if you want play to be about something other than `what would you die for', then character death should be mostly removed from the game. I sometimes wonder if the English-speaking world doesn't have a terrible psychological handicap here in that the word used to describe `what makes a story go' is conflict, which makes everybody think of armed conflict. The direct translation of the Dutch word is tension: if it makes you tense, it works. You can be tense about whether or not parties A and B will kiss (Moonlighting); I'm currently running a game where everybody is all worked up about a single flower, and so on.  Anything that makes you uncertain about a part of the future of the game that you care about will work.

SR
--

[pete_darby]

If it's as a player, is it becuase character death excludes you as a player from play to an extent that you tactically play it safe to remain in the game, while that tactical decision frustrates the expression of your other expectations of play?

AS a player...and that's a good argument to remove character death from the equation if it really is beside the point.

Or, you can ensure that character death doesn't exclude the player from subsequent play (through troupe play, shifting to a new/ former NPC character, staying on as mini-gm). But that brings with it an enforced slip to author / director stance, and a dsitancing from identification with the character that may be undesirable.

[RDU Neil]

Or, you can ensure that character death doesn't exclude the player from subsequent play

This is certainly something I strive for when I am GM.  In all actuality, PC death is rare in our games, but it does happen.  Our group varies on how attached they get to their characters.  The GM types (Storn and I, and to some extent James) I think are a bit more distanced, a bit more able to lose or switch characters if it makes sense for the story being told.  Others are "plumbers" to some extent, and want longevity to explore nuances to beloved characters.  This is not something that would be easy, IMO, to make a group decision about.  All I can say is that I feel the GM has to be more sensitive to the players desire for character continuity than he might otherwise be.  

The character is the conduit to the game for the player... any change in character, death or not, is a disruption of that connection, even if small.

Now, that being said, death of PCs is extremely important in our games.  It is often walking the razors edge of Sim (let the dice fall where they may, the outcome simply happens) and Nar (the events must be meaningful, not just because that's what happens, especially PC death).

This often requires quick stepping in game and back loading of meaning into a scene post game.  Giving death meaning,f or the player to experience as part of the group, is essential for their being an acceptance of character death.

Example:  In game play goes horribly wrong for one player in a climactic scene that had been building and building.  James' samurai was facing a foe he had been training for fight over many adventures.  Winning this battle was well laid out as key to moving to the next stage of this sub-campaign.   During the fight, I've never seen dice rolling go so badly for someone, so many times.  If there were gods looking down on this battle, they disfavored Jubei.  It was a brutal, no-quarter asked fight, maybe one poor tactical choice by James, but mostly, the dice hated him.  Roll after roll failed in a system with a very nice bell curve with a large normative range of success.  (We jokes that the dice knew James enjoyed Amber and were sticking it to the "Diceless boy!")  In the end, Jubei was soundly and humiliatingly beaten.  This could have been a disaterous game for the campaign, and the play group, but two things happened.  As GM, I knew I had to take at least a small element out of the hands of the dice, and put it into the players hands as a character moment, a character defining situation.  On the players side, James stepped up with some serious balls and made a brutal choice that turned this game from a train wreck, into one of the most memorable sessions we've run.  It did require us to step away from Sim... what happens happens... and for us to provide an on the fly adjustment, in character of course, to allow player choice... a Nar decision on whether or not to regain honor through seppuku, knowing that such an act would forego any chance of the samurai to get to know the daughter he had just found out he had... and so he did it, with his daughter as his  second, and died seeing respect and honor in his daughter's eyes.   It was amazingly intense... even ended that subcampaign with a failure by the heroes to achieve their end goal... but absolutely fulfilled the play groups desire for story... at least as we understand it.  

The point being, this wasn't planned, or discussed OOC, nor was it at all what the player "wanted" to have happend (in game.)  But is was a powerful moment in the history of the world and the history of the play group.  It became a "Remember when..." moment of the highest order.

Without players willing to risk their characters like this, such games would never happen.  I couldn't continue gaming without this element being integral to any story being told.  It's just a necessary piece of ephemera for me.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

But that brings with it an enforced slip to author / director stance, and a dsitancing from identification with the character that may be undesirable.

I don't think that stnce really equates into distance from the character. People watch movies or read books all the time and they are indeed in "audience stance" since all they can do is passively absorb the film or novel, yet they still develop a strong empathy with the characters. I think stance is misleadingly beside the point when it comes to distance from character.

[pete_darby]

I don't think that stnce really equates into distance from the character. People watch movies or read books all the time and they are indeed in "audience stance" since all they can do is passively absorb the film or novel, yet they still develop a strong empathy with the characters. I think stance is misleadingly beside the point when it comes to distance from character.

Well, I think it does. So nyah.

Seriously, I think the identification between character and player is often much stronger than that between character and viewer or reader, and in my experience is only rivalled by that bewteen character and writer or actor.

But that's for another time.

[M. J. Young]

I know that GNS states that there is no difference between PC and Player.  But this is where I and GNS part company.  I do think there is a difference.  I THINK and FEEL different when playing different characters.  Quite similar to thinking in another language compared to your native language.

I'm the guy to answer this.

I can get so into my characters' thoughts that I take Myers-Briggs tests as them and come out in completely different personality types. The second chapter of my novel, Verse Three, Chapter One, is told from the perspective of the female protagonist, and that gender-identifier program decided it was written by a woman. When I get into the character identity, I can tell you exactly what that character thinks, feels, says, does, believes, hates, and loves, without more thought than I would give to the same questions directed at me (sometimes perhaps with less). I am quite ready to argue that characters force you to do things, and prevent you from doing other things, because that's who they are.

But it's not true.

That is not who the character is; the character isn't anybody. That is who I characterize the character as being. I have defined the nature of this imaginary person, set the bounds of who he (or she) is, given him all his motivations and values. They exist not within him, but within me. In the end, the character is not telling me what has to be done, or can't be done. I am telling myself these things. I am telling myself that I want this character to be this person, this kind of person with these beliefs and values, this way of thinking, this mode of conduct. I am telling myself that I will not violate that framework, that structure.

Thus in the end it is not the character who controls me, but I control myself through the character.

And although I can say, "Slade would not do that," what I mean is, "If I made Slade do that, he would cease to be the character I want him to be; and what I want him to be is more important to me than whether he does this thing at this moment."

I agree that a lot of game characters do things real people would never do. In fact, one of the interesting things to watch players do in Multiverser is come to grips with the fact that their in-game selves cannot die. Starting with the premise that this is them, they are almost always more cautious with their characters at the beginning of play, because they have this sense that something is a risk they would not take; but then when they've died a few times and come back to life, they start to increase their risk-acceptance, doing things people wouldn't do, because in their minds the cost has been declining.

As far as my comments earlier about playing an adventurer, it's a premise (not a narrative premise, but the foundation for a tale) that works if the players embrace it. If you say, "In this game you're going to play someone who risks his life as part of the job, because that's what he's good at," you get a solid foundation for adventures. As to why some talented fighter would pass up a job as a castle guard in deference to risking his life regularly, puh-leease. The best mercs get six gold coins per month in pay, unless they have advanced to command positions--those very rare jobs pay a few hundred a month. A successful adventure can bring down a few thousand in a week, if things go well, and you won't have to get out of bed at dawn again until you want to. Some people will take the risk, go for the gold. Look at those people who spend their fortunes and risk their lives searching for sunken ships (The Gold Train) and pirate treasures (Oak Island), because of the fame and fortune that awaits them if, somehow, they can succeed in doing what no one has succeeded at before. Think of those guys who wanted to be famous rock musicians (or is it rappers now?) back in high school who are now pushing forty and working odd jobs so they can keep practicing with the band and do a few gigs here and there while waiting for their big break. Think of those kids who just knew that high school classes weren't going to matter because they were going to be NFL football stars, raking down the dough for playing a game, who stuck with it through college and then found themselves undereducated and unemployed. Your character is one of those people: he's got fame and fortune dazzling his eyes, and he's got the skills to get it, if only he gets the right breaks. What the game does is assure that he gets the breaks; what the player does is prove he can do it.

Enough. I hope this is helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Storn]

And although I can say, "Slade would not do that," what I mean is, "If I made Slade do that, he would cease to be the character I want him to be; and what I want him to be is more important to me than whether he does this thing at this moment."

I can buy that.

A successful adventure can bring down a few thousand in a week

And here is precisely what I cannot buy.  Not in a long term campaign, which *I* say is anything more than 5 eps.  Your statement, "A successful adventure".  Right.  One.  One adventure, 3 episodes, perhaps.  Boom, no more motivation to adventure.  One sucessful dungeon crawl... and bam.. .that adventurer, under most fantasy worlds' economic systems, should be set for life.

That is problematic and doesn't lend itself to a longterm character in that campaign easily.  And on a personal level, I disconnect from characters who are too greedy.. or too one dimensional.  So, yeah, I want better motivation that I'm lusting for gold... or fame.  I would rather put my character's non-existence on the line over country, love, necessity, fight vs. evil... or something....

Hey.  I am one of those folks with stars in their eyes.  I'm a freakin' artist.  I've moved furniture in Washington DC heat and I've been a bicycle messenger in NYC.  I've dug ditches... ALL so I could support myself while my skills got good enough to become an artist who's craft pays the bills.

[montag]

I can get so into my characters' thoughts that I take Myers-Briggs tests as them and come out in completely different personality types.

This is wholly off-topic, but since I've seen you state that before, I'm gonna let you in on a dirty little secret of psychology: Everyone can do that.
Which – incidentally – is why personality tests are almost useless for job interviews, since you're only measuring "who has the best understanding of the ideal candidate's answers". The "almost" is there because figuring out who the ideal candidate is and what that ideal candidate is like is a skill in itself which comes in handy in a whole bunch of jobs ;)
But unless the person you're testing is dumb as a doornail, personality test results from someone who is not cooperating are worthless.

back to regular Forge business ...
(I did not make this a PM since I felt the point might be relevant to other discussions as well. Don't hesitate to delete it if it is considered inappropriate