On Defining And Exploring Humanity

[jburneko]

I'm about to compare writing a novel to designing a Role-Playing Scenario and while I've heard the claim that RPGs are not novels I'd like you to bare with me because I believe that while different in format they can be played for similar effect. That said...

It's obvious that Sorcerer's Mechanics revolve around the Humanity trait. And by doing so it claims that it strongly supports stories that explore some aspect or nature of humanity. What aspect or nature of humanity you wish to explore depends entirely on your definition of Humanity and the scenario you construct around it.

I've been working on my mathematical and scientific setting where low humanity represents unfeeling robotic like corporate worker drone mentality. And I realised that I have a small problem.

The whole POINT to playing a scenario in this world would be to induce the shock of this definition of humanity. This means that I can't tell the players what my definition of humanity is. I want it to slowly dawn on them and watch my morality tale trickle in. The problem is then, that if I don't tell my players my definition of humanity then they can't effectively role-play their current level of humanity. And if they can't role-play their level of humanity then I will never induce behavior from them that will lead to the shocking realization I'm trying to illicit.

What I'm saying is that by revealing my definition of humanity I would be, in effect, giving away 'the moral of the story.' This would be akin to telling me that a novel is about a man who holds X and Y beliefs and because of a series of events he discovers that X and Y beliefs lead him to Z as an outcome and Z is supposed to be this shocking moral revelation. I wouldn't want to read the book after that. You've ruined it for me. If Z doesn't slowly dawn on me along with the character in the novel then there's no enjoyment in the novel. I already get the point so why read the story?

To further clarify I came to the conclusion that once my definition of humanity was out in the open there would no longer be any point to playing within that setting.

Thoughts?

Jesse


[ This Message was edited by: jburneko on 2001-06-25 16:38 ]

[joshua neff]

jesse--

off the top of my head, i can think of a number of books (or plays or movies or comics) that i went into knowing "what they were about" (moby-dick, hamlet, casablanca)--hell, i knew who/what "rosebud" was long before i ever actually saw citizen kane. not to mention all the times i've seen some movies & read some books. knowing the "moral" doesn't ruin anything for me. i've honestly never gone into a story wondering "gosh, i wonder what this story's all about?" & then expected to be shocked in any way. so for me, knowing what the "moral" of a rpg narrative is, before it's played, isn't a problem. in fact, it's a big help. knowing what the moral is, i know a good gm can still surprise me.

[hardcoremoose]

jesse-

As part of my running theory on horror in rpgs, I don't really believe you're going to shock anyone anyway.  You may grab them for a few moments at a crucial point when the realization of what you've been up to dawns on them, but as far as making a lasting impression, that's going to be hit or miss.  It's kind of like comparing Scream to the Eorcist; any two bit film-maker can give you a fake scare by building the music and then having a cat jump onto the main character, but achieving something deeper and more affecting takes real skill and careful preparation.

Give the players a premise and encourage them to work within it, and they'll find the themes and morals that are important to them.  Remember, relationships in Sorceror are focused on the things the *players* care about, not about the things *characters* care about.  If you're going to try to guess at what you think the players should care about, you might guess right, or you might not.  But if you give them the option to tell you what they're interested in, it'll be right every time.  Granted, you may not get that moment of surprise that you're looking for, but if done right, you'll  arrive at something even better.

Basically, I'm saying you should let your players in on the secret.  They will do something interesting with it, and it will mean something to them.    

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

I think it's well to consider the difference between PREMISE and THEME.

Premise is something you get very early in a book or a movie, in which the issue at hand is made clear. Actually, two things are made clear: Situation (what the character is dealing with) and Premise (the issue it raises for the audience member).

Think of a GOOD movie preview, neither giving away all the plot/point, nor being totally obscure. It lets you know these things.

Scott's phrase is excellent:
"Give the players a premise and encourage them to work within it, and they'll find the themes and morals that are important to them."

There it is. You have to stay loose and beef things up or down during play, in reaction to your players, in a way that has never been outlined in print for role-playing games.

However, Scott's other phrase may be misleading:
"Basically, I'm saying you should let your players in on the secret. They will do something interesting with it, and it will mean something to them."

Well, this is maybe too extreme, or isn't clear about timing. I am a heavy-prep GM, just like you, Jesse, and it's important for me to see the players go "Oh, Fuck!" during the game.

The difference, however, is that I like getting the PLAYERS to that point, and then, later, we (GM and players) get the CHARACTERS to that point.

It works.

Best,
Ron

[hardcoremoose]

Hmmm...what an interesting and pertinent discussion.

In regards to the "let them in on the secret" thing, my phraseology could have been better.  Of course I think a GM should keep some of his cards close to his chest, just as I think any player of any game should.  That's part of what makes it a game. I was specifically referring to the definition of Humanity within your game - give them some idea of what you think a low Humanity would indicate, and then see what they do with it.  

You also bring up an interesting topic - that of a moral.  Not a lot of gamers are particularly interested in morals - they just want a fun experience.  I am, however, interested in telling stories that have, as Ron would say, emotional heft and weight.  I'm not sure you can specify a particular moral though; if role-playing is a cooperative effort, shouldn't the players be at least partially responsible for coming to terms with whatever greater truths might be revealed in the narrative.

For instance, I'm prepping a Sorceror game that deals with Demons as being agents of mess media - particularly TV.  One of the themes I'm dealing with is the effect that the media has upon its viewing audience.  In keeping with that, Humanity is defined as a general desensitizing of the Sorcer - a sort of sociopathic detachment from society and from real people.  What would the moral of this be?  That TV is bad, I guess.  But I don't really believe that; I think the mass media has some negatives, but it certainly has some positives.  I just happen find the subject matter interesting, and I'm counting on the players to reveal the moral to me.  Can they redeem the media and themselves, or will the bad stuff overwhelm everything.  Personally, I'm hoping for redemption, but I have my doubts (check out Paul's character in the I Am Terrified Of My Sorceror thread to see why I am dubious).

Am I making sense here?  Probably not.  Oh well...I'm sure I'll be back later.

Take care,
Scott

[Ron Edwards]

Scott,

"I am, however, interested in telling stories that have, as Ron would say, emotional heft and weight. I'm not sure you can specify a particular moral though; if role-playing is a cooperative effort, shouldn't the players be at least partially responsible for coming to terms with whatever greater truths might be revealed in the narrative."

Yes. Oddly enough, I presented two ideas in my above post and managed to articulate only one of them.

Given a Situation for their characters in which the players are now engaged (so "Premise is activated," or something like that), now ... now role-playing takes place. Things happen. People die or don't die, ally or divide, become closer or become estranged. The McGuffins do their things.

And yes, Scott is right - Theme emerges from the actions of the role-playing group. This is the "point" of the story now that it has been created. Since the mode of play we are discussing puts the player-characters firmly into the role of protagonists, their actions and decisions are pivotal - so Theme is the RESULT of role-playing with Premise in action. It is not and cannot be dictated a priori by the GM.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Personally, I'm hoping for redemption, but I have my doubts (check out Paul's character in the I Am Terrified Of My Sorceror thread to see why I am dubious).

Oh ye of little faith! You want to put your hand in my side?

Paul