Soul reviewed

[Balbinus]

Just to let you all know that Kenneth Hite has now reviewed Soul, read all about it at http://www.gamersrealm.com/store1/outofthebox.php

[Ron Edwards]

Wow, that was fast! I am seeing something pretty interesting among reviewers of Sorcerer ... they want to review it all, and they want to review it right away. I've been getting emails about the supplements from people who reviewed the books - there seems to be a level of commitment in these messages that I appreciate very much.

For the record, I've been through all instances of "mapping" or "connection drawing" in book-published role-playing design, including GURPS Goblins, and I'll stand by my claim that my specific construction has significant elements that haven't been presented before.

Best,
Ron

[Balbinus]

Ron.

This isn't a challenge, simply a request.  Goblins for me was a piece of brilliant GM advice and tool provision, what do your relationship maps do that wasn't there?

Note, I'm not saying they don't do stuff that wasn't there, I'd just like to hear you expand on it a little.

Best,

Max

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Max,

I took a little time to collect my thoughts and review GURPS Goblins, just to be ultra-sure. I respectfully request that the following material be read as a linked-points argument, in full. I also want to specify that for purposes of this discussion, I am talking about role-playing that is concerned with emotional intensity, passion, and themes regarding "human-ness."

The issue is precisely this: my relationship-map method is predicated on connections that mainly do not change due to actions. If Bob and Suzy had sex, they had sex. It doesn't matter (for purposes of drawing the map specifically) whether they are working together now, were working together then, are conspiring to murder Pete, or don't even remember one another's names. That line exists - anyone who knows about it will consider any and every action of Bob and Suzy in that context. Suzy's happily married to Sam? Fine - she still had sex with Bob, and knowing this makes a difference to our li'l primate minds.

Thus family kinship and sexual contact are the primary means of drawing the map. Think of these lines as indisputably existing - the social reality of the NPCs. For purposes of drawing the map, never mind what they want, what they wish would have happened, or how the people are associated in other ways (although see below for tweakings).

So Bob and Suzy had sex? If Suzy hates Bob intensely and is plotting over the years to kill him, our knowledge or revelation about the sexual contact "means things" to us, about that behavior. If she changes her mind and now sacrifices herself to save him from the ninja assassin, our knowledge or revelation about the sexual contact still "means things" to us, about that behavior.

The point is that Bob and Suzy may change their behaviors, but the new behaviors, just like the old ones, exist in the context of our knowledge of the facts of their history. And that history is defined mainly in terms of kinship and sexual contact.

Now for the tweakings ... sure, intense romantic or sexual commitment or longing that does not include actual contact might be included. Sure, "sworn liege-man" might be included. Even "chauffeur for" might be included. But as I've said many, many times, these are second-line additions to the map, and in many cases, such NPCs are little "horns" or protrusions off a mapped NPC, rather than being a major element of the map. Such NPCs may become very important in play, usually as Fifth Business, but they tend not to carry the emotional charge of one of the mapped NPCs.

What is not included on a relationship-map is highly significant as well.
- intent: "Bob plans to kill Suzy"
- organizational affiliation: "member of the Dragon Puppet Troupe"
- ideology: "Pete would lay down his life to preserve the honor of the Quincunx Clan"

In practice, such things may be seen as either supporting or straining/violating the existing lines on the map. Those existing lines (of kin and sex) provide meaning to these things (the intent, affiliations, or ideology), because they are either being reinforced or violated. Without the map, these things become ... well, just blah.

Consider. "Oh, Pete's a fanatic," as opposed to, "Oh shit! Pete is such a fanatic that he'd kill his own uncle!" or "Oh, man! Pete defied the Quincunx order to kill his wife - he couldn't bring himself to do it." Note that in each case, the "uncle" or "wife" line is a fixed social reality, and whether Pete obeys or disobeys his ideological orders is what may vary. No matter what he does, the map provides emotional weight to his actions.

People are always asking, "How do I get my players to care about my NPCs?" That's how. That is how.

That is why all of the previous "circles-and-lines" diagrams in role-playing games and supplements are not relationship-maps sensu Soul. They primarily reflect intent, organizational affiliation, and ideology.

Therefore, yes, intent, organizational affiliation, and ideology are important for role-playing. I do not suggest that they be ignored or pushed aside or otherwise left out. But they gain their importance insofar as they reinforce or violate the lines of a relationship-map.

The above paragraph is so important that I'm going to say it again, and hope it sinks into someone's head in some way. ... yes, intent, organizational affiliation, and ideology are important for role-playing. I do not suggest that they be ignored or pushed aside or otherwise left out. But they gain their importance insofar as they reinforce or violate the lines of a relationship-map.

All of this material, I'm afraid, did not gel in my mind until the final text for the printed version of Soul was already out of my hands. The fundamentals at work - because I'd derived them from literature and my emotional experience with it - were so central that I recognized the role-playing history of "circles and lines" as unrelated without having to analyze it too carefully. Thus the person who's coming from that role-playing history, seeing my circles and lines, says, "Oh, I've seen that before," and it was (until recently) very hard for me to grasp what the hell they could be thinking.

Best,
Ron

[Ayrizale]

Hi,

   How do you, personally, handle multiple groups of individuals that are not connected by sexual or kinship relations, but still have ties or impact on each other or the story?  Do you have multiple Maps to represent each group that actually has such relationships and then relate those maps with the secondary lines, or do you simply avoid such situations entirely?

Thanks,

Lael

[Ron Edwards]

Lael,

I'd like you to think about the situation you propose, in terms of a story.

As I see it, by having "an impact," we have to be talking about stressing a line on the map, thus focusing (again) on the map.

Thus look at Die Hard. The map is a simple triangle: main guy, his wife, guy who is hitting on her. Add a very dangerous element - thieves (a) who threaten the wife and (b) with whom the slimy guy allies.

See? The thieves at first glance seem to be "off the map," but they're not - they matter strictly insofar as they place stressors on the line between the main character and his wife. The climax of the story is not, "How can John McClane stop these awful thieves," but "How can John McClane save his marriage?" which is exactly where it began.

If such a thing is not happening, and we don't even have some tie between characters on a map (like "best buddies since childhood" or something like that), then all the Sturm und Drang external-threat imaginable is going to yield set-pieces, but no story. This is why Pulp Fiction is brilliant and Ronin is a piece of crap.

Best,
Ron

[Ayrizale]

Ok, I think I understand that point, that the thieves are not necessarily a point worhty of space on the Map, so much as a Bang (I believe I have the correct term?).  Actually, the point in your example that interests me is the guy that is hitting on John's wife.  As I understand the explanation of the Relationship Map, it would exclude him from the map since he has no familial kinship with either John or his wife and, to the best of my recollection, has not explicitly had sex with John's wife either. (It's been a while since I've seen Die Hard, so I could be wrong about that point, but the instance where he is just some guy that is hitting on her is still a potential setting for a story.)

   I'm trying to think of a good example from literature or media that I can use as an example for the question, but I'm coming up blank (not used to thinking in these terms and looking for the relationships.)

   Perhaps my misunderstanding is in the Kinship portion of the Maps, is this intended to be familial kinship (this is what I understood it to mean) or is it any intense emotional connection that does not involve sex?  And here I'm speaking of my (mis)understanding of the Basic Relationship Maps.  (I have not yet had the chance to purchase The Sorcerer's Soul, so my understanding of the Relationship Maps is based solely on what I've been able to glean from this forum and from the Gaming Outpost Forums.)

   If it is the former, then an example would be this:  Love Triangle ABC where A is married to B, and C is B's Lover.  ABC have friends in Love Triangle DEF where D and E are married and F is E's lover (add incest if you want some familial kinships other than marriage.)  If ABC and DEF have no direct familial kinships or sexual encounters between them, but are just friends (say A&B know E&F and think they are married, while C knows D&E and knows they are married.)  If the friendships do not register on the Relationship Map, then how would you work it?  Would you use two Maps, one for each triangle and then make notes to the effect of which people know each other outside of the Map?

    I hope that I explained that well enough that you can see where my misuderstanding lies.  Thanks for the responses, I think that I'm really getting a better handle on this.

Lael

[Ron Edwards]

Lael,

You're right, the thieves are a Bang (and the main one, Gruber, played by Alan Richman, is a Bang all by himself!). I suggest that Hart Bochner's character, whose name I've forgotten, is either a Bang (as a threat to the marriage) or a link (as I stated it, just because of the sexual content of his interest in Holly).

You also have it pretty much right on target for the two love triangles. I suggest two solutions for "linking" them.

1) Create a family kinship for (say) A to (say) E, and now you have one map.

2) Go ahead and use a "lesser" link to do the same, as in "friends with." Or, as you say, just note it in the notes.

One of the problems with discussing this is that people sometimes think I advocate using ONLY the links in the map for generating back-story, and this is not the case. Instead, as you've picked up on, the relationship-map is a powerful part of back-story prep, not a replacement for it.

Its other big benefit is to provide NPCs whose behavior can vary and change, yet still embedded in a meaningful matrix.

Best,
Ron

[Ayrizale]

Thanks for the additional clarifications and explanations.  This has proved very, very helpful and insightful.

Lael

[Gordon C. Landis]

OK, Die Hard and relationship maps - this looks like a good way to address my . . . "concern", mild though it is, is still too strong a term . . . how about my "curiosity" about the preeminence of sex and family in the relationship map?

First, in support of the familial importance in maps - aren't there a couple brothers in the criminal gang?  Doesn't John kill one, and then have a big/intense confrontation(s) with the other?

Now, exploring other factors in Die Hard - the facts that a) John is a *cop* (a very good, very dedicated one), and that b) he's up against *criminals* (very clever and very ruthless ones), are MAJOR factors in the movie (note: I'm not saying Ron is denying/would deny that - he expressly states that organizational affiliations ARE important -  I'm just curious about why that wouldn't be in the relationship map, or perhaps speculating about how it could be).  Those affiliations, it seems to me, do provide "the context of our knowledge of the facts of their history" for situations like John's interaction with the local patrol officer he contacts via radio.  It is that "copness" that gives meaning the local officers' ability to overcome his hesitation/remorse and take out the bad guy towards the end of the film.  In fact, it's certainly possible to see the marital relationship as gaining its' importance insofar as it violates/supports the proposed relationship-map "line" of John's dedication to his job.  Certainly, that conflict (wife vs. job, not simply "how can John save his marriage?"), and how to resolve it (a traditional Hollywood "have it all" resolution, "how does John keep both his wife and his job?"), is fundamental to the film - why pick one side rather than the other for the map?

Gordon

PS - This all seems a bit familiar, like perhaps it was discussed last time Die Hard and maps were mentioned . . . apologies if I'm covering old ground in an unhelpful way.

[james_west]

why pick one side rather than the other for the map?

Let me see if I can channel Ron here;

It's because people doing their job, even if their job is being a cop, doesn't have the fundamental, visceral appeal to human interest that familial/sexual relationships do. Thus, the fact that this love triangle is complicated by the fact that one pillar of it is a violent criminal is what makes it an action movie; the fact that the action movie is based around this love triangle is what makes it a good action movie.

How's that?

- James

[contracycle]

It's because people doing their job, even if their job is being a cop, doesn't have the fundamental, visceral appeal to human interest that familial/sexual relationships do. Thus, the fact

I'm afraid I find this idea frankly, umm, silly.  This is not to suggest that the jobs that people do are necessarily themselves dramatically interesting - but is Smiley just "doing his job"?  Arguably so - and he suffers doubt as to how and how far - but what imparts the tension to the context is the very seriousness of that job, its broader role and impact on society.  Without that context, without the specific and detailed place that he is in, his personal dilemma is valueless and uninteresting.

What about ER and Hill Street Blues?  All the procedurals depend on the job context to provide the characters with their character-ness; the "heroic" stature implicit in the subject of any story.  I consider the concept expressed in the initial quote at the top of this post to be a gross reduction of humanity to its lowest, least human, denominator - pure meat untrammeleled by intellect, in whom the reproductive urge and ancillary mammal behaviours are interpreted as the pinnacle of the human experience.  Not only do I think it fails to describe people in a multidimensional way, but I think its application to story leads to bad story (i.e. soap, for the most part).

makes it an action movie; the fact that the action movie is based around this love triangle is what makes it a good action movie.

Or, one might see it as a relatively crude McGuffin to get the heroic character to the right place at the right time, and the villains advances as no more than the establishment of bad-guy credentials.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I agree with James, which is probably not surprising.

Gareth, no one said a word about removing "intellect" or social responsibilities from the picture. If I'm not mistaken, you are applying the "nothing-but" concept to the point James and I are making, without cause.

I'm familiar with this argument - or rather, this projection onto my argument - and it's out of the scope of the present discussion. Here, I'll only say that human behavior and values are not a matter of "meat vs. society," or "apish urges vs. culture," or "emotion vs. intellect." Interpreting any point of mine or James' as (1) based on a dichotomy of this sort and (2) lopping off one end of that dichotomy, is mistaken.

Even more importantly, this is not a discussion of what "feels good" or "feels right," or of what corresponds to our individual sense of social purposes. This is a discussion of the undeniable, observable, straightforward power of the relationship map in entertainment media. It really doesn't matter whether one likes it or not.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

It's because people doing their job, even if their job is being a cop, doesn't have the fundamental, visceral appeal to human interest that familial/sexual relationships do.

I guess I disagree - in so far as I'd measure such things, I find John's dedication to being a cop far more fundamental and visceral than his relationship with his wife.  Certainly it's more interesting (to me), and gets much more time/attention over the course of the movie.  It *is* heightened by the fact that his relationship is in jeopardy, but it is by no means clear to me that we get a "better" map by basing it on the relationship (with the job/affiliation as an additional detail) than we would by basing the map on job/affiliation (with the relationship as an additional detail), at least for a story that is as much about the job (much more about the job, for me, in Die Hard) as it is about the relationship.

I recently finished Tim Powers' "Declare" (if the folks in the Sorcerer-Spy thread haven't read it, they should).  Plenty of sexual/familial stuff in there: is it more important - fundamental and visceral - than the allegiances to/hatred of various countries, ideologies, organizations, and power blocks?  I don't think so.

Everyone grants that both are important, but instinctively and analytically, I'm just not convinced that a map is best served by focusing on the one rather than the other.  The statement that    intent, organizational affiliation, and ideology gain their importance insofar as they reinforce or violate the lines of a relationship-map seems equally supportable (in at least some cases) when reversed: relationships only matter - only gain interest and story value - insofar as they reinforce or violate intent, affiliation and/or ideology.

Now, "instinctively and analytically" does not include "practically" (as in "in practice"), so . . . until I try maps one or both ways myself in actual games (which means I have to give up my "but I'm not ready to GM again yet" excuse), I'm quite open to the argument that for RPGs, it just somehow turns out to work better if you focus on the familial/sexual.

But if someone can demonstrate how/why, that's fine too.

Examples of how trying to include affiliation and etc. in a map led to confusion, lack of utility, or other failures would also be useful in this context.

Gordon

PS - We really ought to pull this "Realtionship Map" stuff out from under the "Soul Reviewed" thread title . . .

[RogerEberhart]

It doesn't matter how fundamental/visceral it is to the character. What matters is how it affects the audience (or in a RPG the players). As a viewer, do I care how dedicated he is to being a cop? No, not really. However, a loved one in danger is something that everyone will relate to. The whole purpose of a relationship map is to hook the players. How dedicated people are to their job is not much of a hook.

Roger