[Misery Bubblegum] Talking about other characters

[TonyLB]

I spent a longer time than I should trying to "deduce" a formula for how to make a character appealing (at least to me) from first principles.  All of the things I thought should make a character appealing either had huge loop-holes where they clearly didn't work ... or just flat out didn't work, ever.

So instead I did the scientist thing, and just sat down with piles of fiction and started observing.  I realized that the moments when characters start to appeal to me are all moments when they are talking or thinking about (and occasionally acting with clear reference to opinions about) other characters in the fiction.  I talked about it a bit.

In any event, having formed an idea that this Thing worked, I decided to put it into practice.  The most recent playtest of Misery Bubblegum (last night) made "Talking/thinking about other characters" a critical step in the dice economy.  Dice of your color start in your pool, then go to a "dead" pool when you roll them, then you can give them to someone else for their pool when you talk about that person's character, then when that person does something in reference to that opinion they roll the dice and those dice come back to you.  It's a "circle of life" thing.  It was obvious enough that players were looking for opportunities to express opinions.

I've got four vignettes:  This is in context of the "Cross-time High School" with students Gilgamesh (yeah, that one) and Cassandra (not that one ... a cyber-chair bound girl from a distant future) as player characters, and me filling in the NPC cast.

Vignette One:  Sydney was playing Cassandra in a scene where he'd described no other characters present (she was making killer robots to try to get Gil's attention, and gloating maniacally).  I wanted to move some dice along, so I introduced Jessica, a sweet little uniformed freshman with a bright pink purse and a winning smile.  "You're so good with tools!  Wouldn't you rather be doing something more ... uh ... constructive?"

Cassandra treated Jessica as a disposable minion (C: "Here, hold down this robot while I make the adjustments ... it's sharp," J: "Ow!  It hurts!  It hurts so much!") and generally abused her.  But all players (myself included) agreed that we liked Jessica.  She'd had two lines, and we already liked her, a lot.  Dunno why.

Vignette Two:  After Cassandra makes several attacks on the school, and captures Gil's friend Enkidu, Jessica comes to Gil and shyly strikes up a conversation.  I was just handing out dice like candy during this one ... like, four dice in four sentences.  Lemme see if I can remember enough to paraphrase.  "Uh ... you know Cassandra?  Red hair, sorta cut here, off the neck" (Sydney pointed out that Jessica was the only person whose first impression of Cassandra did not involve the wheelchair) then all in one long, desperate breath I said "Well ... I mean ... yeah, she's a little crazy in the head but she's also really nice deep down, and you seem like you're nice too, even if you are really big and scary, and ..."

At this point I took a deep breath, and Eric and Sydney said "Awwwwww..." in that tone you get when something is immeasurably cute.  And I took another breath, because I realized "I have no idea why she's saying this.  I did it for the dice, but now I want to justify it as more than her being a chatter-box."

And then I said "... so I just thought ... well ... she's the one who has your friend, but she's not really bad, and I don't want you to hurt her, so if I lead you to her will you promise to be nice to her?"

Eric looked pole-axed, and in a fit of inspiration I held up my hand, pinky crooked strangely.  "Pinky-swear?" Jessica asked desperately.  Eric had Gil pinky-swear to be nice to Cassandra (us describing how his pinky is the size of Jessica's whole wrist) and they went and did the rescue, and Cassandra yelled at Jessica for betraying her, and Jessica delivered some more opinion ("You're AWFUL!") and ran off in tears.  I think everybody really, really loved Jessica at this point.  She's just so ... uh ... I don't know what she is, but I know that it appeals.

Vignette Three:  I figured I should branch out in my opinion offering.  After all, I'm the GM, I've got all the NPCs I want.  So I had a scene which was just Enkidu coming up and expressing concern about this whole "high school" thing.  "It's not like it was, before.  Man, Gil, you totally kicked ass back in Sumer.  It was poetry in motion," dice sliding across the table, "But now you're all ... worried and stuff.  You're thinking.  Is that what you want?  Or is this high school thing just a trap?  Maybe we should go back."

What sticks with me about this one is that I'm pretty sure I never described any facts about Enkidu.  Don't know what he likes, or what he looks like, or who he hates.  But I know that he worries about Gilgamesh, and I know specifically what type of worries he has, and that actually tells me enough that I know he's a stand-up guy and I like him.  All that took maybe twenty seconds.  I looked at Eric and said "I think that's the scene, right?" and he nodded and we moved on.

Vignette Four:  And here's what we moved on to.  Cassandra had been working to reform for the second half-hour of the session, acting all nice ... and I wanted to throw a wrench in those works.  So I said "Bathroom scene.  She's in the stall, three girls walk in talking ... about her."  And then (again in about twenty seconds total) I just slammed Cassandra with a pile of dice attached to putrid opinions.  They said she was uppity, they said she didn't deserve Gilgamesh's attention (at which Sydney was whispering sadly, in Cassie's voice, "It's true") and then one of the girls said that she'd heard that in the 47th century where Cassandra came from, they were actually totally capable of curing her legs, but everyone in her life lied to her and told her that the procedures wouldn't work on her, because they wanted an excuse to dump her in the past.  "God, I hate even thinking about her," the third girl said, closing in for the kill, "All that metal and stuff ... she's not even human.  She's a monster."  And, of course, I handed over another die to punctuate the word "monster."

Good, good stuff.  Cassie flipped out (gotta use those dice I gave!) and attacked them, and Gilgamesh showed up to fight the monster ... and just as he's about to leap into battle I say "There's a little tugging on your sleeve.  It's Jessica," and I give him the big puppy-dog eyes and crook my pinky just so and mouth the words "Pinky swear."  We all took a moment out of game then to voice our shared opinion that Jessica was the best person imaginable, and was the conscience of the whole school.  Then, back to the action.

Do you have the feeling that you like these characters from what you've heard, that you have some sense of the power of the technique?  Even if you think you do, you're probably not imagining the full extent of what it did, and how quickly and easily.  I doubt very much that I've gotten it across.  The sense of love for the characters was so strong ... I'd hoped and hoped that the technique would have great effects, but it was way, way, way beyond anything I expected.  I was genuinely and constantly surprised.

And I do not know why it works.  I have no freakin' clue.  It doesn't make any sense.  No sense.  Liking a character should have to do with a whole multifaceted balance of factors, but most importantly it should have to do with the character.  How is it that directing the vast majority of my energy in playing Jessica toward thinking about Gil and Cassandra ended up with such a vividly striking portrayal of Jessica?  Why is that?

I'm seriously perplexed.  If anyone has ideas on what the hell was happening here, I'm all ears.

[Danny_K]

Wow. Bottled lightning, Tony... you gotta see if your experiment is replicable. 

Here's my theory, FWIW: evolutionary psychology suggests that humans evolved in small groups.  Lots or even most of human behavior is really a dressed-up version of primate behavior.  Any book about chimps by Frans De Waal or Jane Goodall will illustrate this abundantly -- the dynamics of a chimpanzee group are so damn human, it hurts. 

Anyway, the theory goes on to suggest that people, as part of their basic cognitive equipment, have lots of modules dedicated to getting along and succeeding in a group.  There's a huge literature about group dynamics, but I'll skip over that to focus on the "mind-reading" module.  That's one of the modules that autistic people are deficient in.  It allows us to make a mental model of other people, put ourselves in their shoes and figure out why something made them mad or sad.  It also helps us keep track of relationships between people -- all that "Bob likes Sarah, but Sarah likes John, who hates her but  is secretly in love with..." that comes out so gloriously in high school. 

So you're using a mechanism which taps right into one of the major cognitive modules of the human brain, and in a setting which also taps into that module in a big way.  Maybe that's where some of that synergy comes from. 

[Callan S.]

It's easier to judge someone when you observe them openly judging someone else?

Here's my theory, FWIW: evolutionary psychology suggests that humans evolved in small groups.  Lots or even most of human behavior is really a dressed-up version of primate behavior.  Any book about chimps by Frans De Waal or Jane Goodall will illustrate this abundantly -- the dynamics of a chimpanzee group are so damn human, it hurts.

I'm not sure dressed up is apt. A 'skewed by judgement' version of primate behaviour might be. There's an element that reflects on primate behaviours and decides whether they work, or perhaps more difficult to decide, whether they are right. It's a creature which lives out primate behaviours, yet observing that doesn't reveal the full extent of the creature. Judgement of their own behaviour is the final part of them.

Hah, and I thought I was going to wank on, but it did end up tying into the thread topic.

Though one of these days I'll probably be super wank, making a nar game around a super fiddley question like 'why judge'. I mean, say autistic people don't judge (that's what the mental model is for and they are missing it). Why do you judge - have you ever questioned that? Or do you just do it like the autistic person just doesn't do it?

Heh, that reminds me of a bit in the prince of nothing series, where a woman in it is described to find it supremely empowering somehow to just be completely under the influence of another character, without question. Didn't get it at the time, but couldn't dismiss it either. Perhaps its another extra layer on top of the previous judgement - to decide that someone is completely beyond judgement. To decide at such a level is to extend the human condition even further from something which is 'just' a primate, and that's the empowerment.

[Simon C]

It's weird.  I like those characters too! And that's just reading about them!

I think maybe it's a combination of two things:

1)  It's easier to care about people who care about things. 
2) It's easier to care about people who care about the same things as you.

Both the NPCs were strongly concerned about the main characters in the story.  They feel important to the story because the story is important to them.  What's more, the main characters feel more important becasue there are these nice people who care about them.  I think you've discovered something that's very important to compelling stories and characters - people care about people who care about people...

[cdr]

Jessica is vulnerable and kind, an appealing combination.  I expect it'll break everyone's hearts when fearless Enkidu works up his nerve to tell her he likes her, and she says there's someone else she already likes.

I really like the dice transfer when talking about someone.

If you haven't already read them, I'd highly recommend the manga series Nana and Mars for examples of the likeability of characters who care deeply about someone other than themselves.

Also likely to be of use: Robert Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice about what causes people to do things for other people, and Rosalind Wiseman's Queen Bees and Wannabes about the social pressures that lead girls who are "best friends forever" to betray each other and not understand why.  Both are very readable.  The latter is based on US schools but a lot of the same things seem to apply to Japanese schools.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Tony,

Did your players knew about the technique before you started the session? Did you explain your expectations about it to them explicitly before? Was it communicated somehow in the rules text you gave them before play, or something?

I've read the vignettes and I don't feel anything in particular about Gil, Enkidu and Cassandra. That  is, there is some coolness - but it's the standard variety of coolness that all characters who construct killer robots, have pinky the size of a wrist or are named Enkidu possess in my eyes.

I really like Jessica. Now, there might be three reasons for this:

1.It may be exactly like you say.

2.It may be because in your post you suggested I should like her. You create expectations in almost every single paragraph, and your enthusiasm is contagious. My sympathy for Jessica might have been influenced by your suggestiveness and writing in general, and not specifically by the technique.

3.I'd say that there is a lot of little details that draw my attention. Bright pink purse. Pinky promise. The general puppy-dog attitude. These communicate that Jessica is a cute helpless sweetheart. As such, she simply demands sympathy. I may have been influenced by those little bits of characterization that don't come directly from dialogues. If I think about it, being the Anime addict I am, recently I've been often catching myself on totally ignoring character's words while watching an Anime  - and "soaking" the visuals and sound instead. What, makes me like the character are often the combination of little gestures, theme music, and the voice actor's play - all the things that add to the fictional character's "charisma".

Now, I'm searching for some AP examples from my experience, of characters I instantly liked. The first thing I can think of is Crit, my kobold sidekick from D&D. He really stuck in my memory - and what I remember best are the moments of "oh, it's so suggestive" connected with little gestures of the GM. The GM was a charismatic guy, and his role-playing of that kobold was simply ingenious.

I wasn't there in your game and I lack the broader context, so I can't say much about the technique itself with any certainty. These are the conclusions I came to while reading your vignettes, which aren't the game itself of course.

However, sorry, but I'm kind of skeptical about it. You have the opinion of being a charismatic guy, and your writing certainly is charismatic. I think it's very possible that the technique itself isn't really so strong - although I'm not saying it doesn't add anything to the game, only it may not be so miraculous. Your personal role-playing skills may be.

[TonyLB]

Did your players knew about the technique before you started the session? Did you explain your expectations about it to them explicitly before? Was it communicated somehow in the rules text you gave them before play, or something?

It was in the rules, so everybody knew about it.

He really stuck in my memory - and what I remember best are the moments of "oh, it's so suggestive" connected with little gestures of the GM. The GM was a charismatic guy, and his role-playing of that kobold was simply ingenious.

Do you have anything specific?  Because ... I'm not getting what you're saying here.  I mean, I believe that you feel something, but I don't know what it is from what you've said.  I can't read between those lines.

[Emily Care]

Hey Tony,

I wonder if the power is on the player side of the equation?  There (almost) nothing better than having someone else see what you've created and run with it.  The dynamic you create by having other people narrate about each others' characters could be tres powerful.  And this points the characters right at one another, in conflict, in negotiations. 

Yes, it's easy to care about a character if they want something, even more so if they want something from *you*.

best,
Emily

[Filip Luszczyk]

Do you have anything specific?  Because ... I'm not getting what you're saying here.  I mean, I believe that you feel something, but I don't know what it is from what you've said.  I can't read between those lines.

This were things like:

Waving a white flag when we found him in a dungeon.

Constructing crazy traps from chairs, tables and stuff in taverns.

Stabbing imprisoned goblins with a stick from behind the bars.

And the like. With the GM gesticulating, making facial expressions and modulating voice. It's not like he was actively trying to act out the NPC accurately - I know people who do it and make an art out of it, and there are rarely good effects to it. Back then, it was simply coming out naturally, as a visual/vocal enhancement to the verbal description which contributed some little character exposition. Although we've been playing hard core gamist dungeon crawl at the time, that was the character we would be ready to sacrifice for if needed - that's why I remember it so well.

[TonyLB]

I wonder if the power is on the player side of the equation?  There (almost) nothing better than having someone else see what you've created and run with it.  The dynamic you create by having other people narrate about each others' characters could be tres powerful.  And this points the characters right at one another, in conflict, in negotiations. 

Yes, it's easy to care about a character if they want something, even more so if they want something from *you*.

I certainly think there's some of that, but does this explain why I liked Jessica so much, when I was the one playing her?

[Jasper Flick]

I'm curious Tony, those girls slamming Cas in the bathroom, did you hate them? So far I've only really seen you talk about attributing positive qualities to others and what it does to you; what about negative ones?

To me, it seems that how people relate to others matters a lot. It's the social stuff. This is determined both by their words and their actions, but a fast way to discover that from a stranger is by hearing them talk. It's like they're behind a curtain but holding up a mirror so I can see their reflection. It gives me a quick best-guess as to whether they're self-absorbed, boot-lickers, oblivious, caring, sincere, confident, responsible, humble, competent, air-header, obsessed, no-nonsense, helpless, or anything else. The stronger the impression I get the stronger I'll like or dislike them and the more I'll care. So it's no wonder that in RPGs I like those impressions to be strong.

Now what did I catch from your vignettes, exclusively from what the characters said themselves? (Keep in mind, I'm totally missing the way things are said, I only have the words, and I'm explicitly disregarding anything else.)
Gil: nothing. Can't say a thing.
Cas: commanded Jessica like a minion and silently acknowledged the girls slamming her. That's cold disregard and superiority followed by self-loathing. That gets my dark sympathy for a selfish person who wants to be loved but rightfully doesn't get any.
Jessica: sucked up to Cas and wanted her to be a better person, loudly objected to discomfort, sucked up to Gil and tried to help him but wanted him to be nice, agreed Cas was weird but that she could be a nice person as well, and concluded Cas was bad after all. That makes her sincere but also an airhead. Nice but annoying.
Girls slamming Cas: mercilessly bad-mouthing Cas. The school-girl bitch club, as merciless as teenage girls can be.

I'm kinda negative here, but that's mostly because I cannot relate much due to the restricted data I chose. Without proof of the opposite, I'm assuming worst-case instead of giving the benefit of the doubt. Adding all the other information you gave makes me a lot more sympathetic.

[TonyLB]

I'm curious Tony, those girls slamming Cas in the bathroom, did you hate them?

No, I liked them too.  They're really bad people, and they're entertaining about it.  What's not to like?  I wanted to see more of them.  I particularly wanted to see them suffer (as they very quickly did).  I expect to introduce them time and again, until we've got names and distinct personalities for each of the three.  They're terrific characters.

Cordelia Chase, from Buffy, is another good example of the same sort of thing.  I adore that character.  She makes the show more fun every time she comes on screen.  Of course she's a bitch.  That's part of the charm.

[Jasper Flick]

Aha! That's interesting to know, because I don't like them as people. I DO like them as source material just as much as you do. I like to hate them. So its the interpretation of "to like" that's important here as well.

[TonyLB]

Yeah, but I'm not sure it's easy to separate the two.

Yes, you can say things like "Well, what if you were dealing with them as a real person?" but the simple fact is that I'm not.  I'm dealing with them as a fictional entity, and my liking for them in that tends to translate into sentiments like "I hope they find happiness, somehow," and "Oh good, they deserve some good luck for a change."

My son is becoming a bit of a Pokemon addict, for instance ... and while I am always delighted to see Team Rocket (the villains of the piece) getting electrocuted (or drowned or immolated) by some small cartoon monstrosity, I am also pleased to see the plots where they fight for some good cause (like keeping their group together, or saving pokemon from some greater menace) and get to win.  They're evil people, but I like them anyway.  I can afford to.  I don't have to live with them.

[Jasper Flick]

Indeed we can affort to like them! But what I also like is that I can afford to utterly despise some of them as well, without hoping for their redemption. I can't do that in real-life because it's not that black-and-white as fictional characters can be. Not that I dislike complex fictional characters, but a truly irredeemable villain whom I can passionately hate is quite refreshing once in a while. I have no sympathy for such a character at all, I don't want them turn good because I want them to suffer and DIE DIE DIE! Can you relate to that?

Hm... steering too far off-topic with this?

How is it that directing the vast majority of my energy in playing Jessica toward thinking about Gil and Cassandra ended up with such a vividly striking portrayal of Jessica?  Why is that?

Maybe because you put your soul in it? In focusing on Gil and Cas, you focused on the players as well, and so you all could relate stronger?

Perhaps speech and its accompanying subliminal communication is the most pure form of expression in RPGs, thus allowing for the strongest result? This suggests that silent tough guys are harder to connect with than extrovert, animated, and talkative people. The silent tough guy could make his actions and demeanor speak for him, but in RPGs this is mostly communicated indirectly through description, which dillutes its impact. It could also be that using speech simply takes more time than describing what's said, thus prolonging exposure and heightening impact. This could be why people insist to play "in character". Makes sense?

Compare "A cute girls walk up to you and giddily jumps around you saying how cute you are and that she totally loves you. She wants to be your girlfriend." with
"A girls walks up to you, "Oh my god you're soooo cuuuuute! I totally love you love you love you! Can I be your girlfriend? I'm totally in love!"

Or "The duke is full of himself, he basically ignores you and instead talks about his own achievements and downplays yours. He's an annoying prick." with
"Slaying dragons is something for a true hero, like me. I could have my whole demesne decorated with tropies, but truly only some of them where fit to be a significant bounty for a man of my stature. As I am no show-off, I only kept the significant ones. That beast down by the river? Not worth the title of dragon; not even a drake. A wolf stealing the occasional sheep at best. A true hero is not distracted by such trivialities."