On Author and Director Stance

[jburneko]

This post is probably more 'thinking out loud' than asking an actual question.  But in my gaming circles I find it difficult to explain why having Author/Director power given to the players is so important if creating a story is your priority.

I noticed that after watching a film or while discussing a novel, I'm the only one who says things like, "I think character X was a really interesting addition to the story because he/she really demonstrated i, j, and k about character Y."

I get really bizare looks when I say things like this.  It seems most of my gamer friends don't understand how the actions/reactions of one character can reflect/enhance/alter the defining qualities of another character.

An example I recently brought up with one of my players is a British show shown here in the States called, 'British Men Behaving Badly.'  I pointed out that if you left the two male characters' actions EXACTLY the same but either eliminated or rewrote the two female characters then the two male characters could easilly come off as very sexist and offensive.  It's BECAUSE the two female characters are written the way they are that make the two men come off as just being silly and misguided.

To bring this back into an RPG context the example I like to use is the case of Seduction.  Let's assume that character X is trying to seduce character Y.  Character X's player rolls dice and it comes up a failure.  If I turn to character X's player and say, "Tell me how you think character Y reacts," they tell me that's my job.  They don't understand that character Y's reaction will cast a light on their character.  They don't understand that character Y's reaction can change the definition of what their character is about.  As far as they're concerned character X was definined by his attempt at seduction and that the outcome and reaction are largely irrelivant in terms of character definition.

Of course being on the flip side is equally as frustrating.  In the 7th Sea campaign that I play in, my lecherous character Alonzo keeps trying to have relationions with this really minor NPC who is an artist looking for a patron.  I keep wanting to take that character and use her to really illustrate some points about my character.  I don't care if Alonzo actually succeeds in his lecherous endevors, in fact I think it would be better if he doesn't.  But the GM won't let me.  The GM just keeps telling me to tell her what I do and she'll tell me how the artist reacts.  She doesn't seem to understand that the artist's reactions are just as important as my actions in defining what my character is about.

So to prevent this from just being a rant let me ask you if what I have said is clear?  Can you think of other ways to communicate this point to other people who you think are capable of understanding it but just don't see it yet?

Thanks.

Jesse

[joshua neff]

Jesse--

I know exactly what you mean. If I don't have authorial & directorial power as a player, especially as it relates to my character, I get extremely frustrated. Some people in my group understand this & others don't. One of my players recently complained that while trying to "author" his character, he felt he wasn't "getting into his character", & he wants the latter & doesn't care about the former. While another player feels frustrated because he wants that authorial power & feels he hasn't been exercising it enough.

I'm not really sure how to explain it. I mean, it seems obvious to me that if you were, for example, writing a novel, & you wrote it from one characters point of view & only though about things from that character's perspective, & used only information that character would know, it would be extremely difficult & the novel would, in the end, suck. Your explanation of how one character's actions open up loads of meaning towards another character is really good & makes perfect sense to me.

[jburneko]

I just thought of another much more extreme example where two characters' interactions has a HUGE impact on another character who doesn't even interact with them.

I recently saw a new version of Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke.  This version of Hamlet was set in modern day New York.  Denmark is a corporation.  In my opinion it was a very mixed bag and overall disappointing.  The director did a really good job of directing the film and interpreting the play but completely failed to direct his actors.  But that's beside the point.

An element that was added was that they gave Horatio a girlfriend.  Since they were sticking with the original text she doesn't say a word of dialog.  On top of that she's mostly in the background.  The only thing we ever see is her cuddling with Horatio or Horatio smiling at her or the two of them holding hands and so on.

But the addition of this one, silent and largely 'irrelivant' character had an incredible impact on the feel of the film.  Suddenly the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet looked ten times worse.  The relationship between Hamlet and his mother looked ten times worse.  The addition of a single character who never interacts with anyone other than Horatio suddenly makes all the other women look more tragic than ever and Hamletlook like more of an insensitive moody bastard than he normally is portrayed.

This probably is WAY to subtle of an element to exploit in an RPG but the point was just that it's possible to have the interactions of two characters reflect on the actions of third not involved in the initial interaction.

And yet, I'm sure there were people who were walking away from that movie going, 'Dude, what was up with giving Horatio a girlfriend?'

This is WAY too useful of a technique not to have it's own technical term?  Does anyone know of a litterary term that describes this author technique of using the actions of one or more characters to shine a specific colored light on the actions of another character?  There must be a term and it should be added to the list of Narrativistic 'Tools and Considerations.'

Jesse

[Emily Care]

Jesse:

It sounds like you are having a clash of expectations with your GM if they don't understand why and won't allow you to play an NPC that you feel will help you to illustrate your PC better.  Have you taken them aside and described the effect you are going for?  If your GM comes to appreciate the value of authorial stance for player (which in my opinion is much the same thing as extending GM narrative powers to the players, and actually, the GM may see it that way as well, but interpret it negatively, unlike me) then they would probably let you do it. Communication...

>Joshua wrote:
> it seems obvious to me that if you were,for example, >writing a novel, & you wrote it from one characters point >of view & only though about things from that character's >perspective, & used only information that character would >know, it would be extremely difficult & the novel would, in >the end,suck.

I'm surprised that Lumpley hasn't responded to this yet. :smile: You've stumbled across one of his pet issues.  

Personally, I agree strongly that players should play NPC's, multiple PC's, create and play the world, have authorial powers, co-GM, etc. But I do not agree that your example need be true, nor that it proves the point we are both trying to make.  

Literary digression:

A novel that limits all information to what a single character has access to is an example of a fairly sophisticated and strong narrative technique.  This technique can introduce an element of realism: echoing the narrative constructed of each of our lives through the single protaganist/narrator each of our lives has, i.e. ourself.

It can also be used to question the whole idea of truth in narrative, and to help us realize that in every story we are having events interpreted for us by the author. Henry James' novel _Turn of the Screw_,is an excellent example of this.


Back on topic:

However, I don't believe that every book needs to be written with a single narrator in order to be worth reading. And in role-playing, play is enhanced by having many hands play NPCs, etc.  

Vive la difference!

Emily Care

[joshua neff]

Emily--

I think the difference between Turn of the Screw & RPGs (or rather, the difference that applies to this topic) is that while the point-of-view & information in TotS is limited for the reader, it wasn't limited for the author (I assume, anyway--as I don't hang out with James, I can only assume that James himself knew what was going on beyond any one character's viewpoint--in fact, I would posit that writing such a novel, it would be near impossible to limit author knowledge in order for the story to work). In RPGs, the audience & the author are the same people--the players. So, if your goal is story-creation, limiting player knowledge to only what the character knows & limiting player action to be based on in-character knowledge makes it, from an author's point of view, pretty much impossible.

[Laura Bishop]

On 2001-08-17 17:54, jburneko wrote:

This is WAY too useful of a technique not to have it's own technical term?  Does anyone know of a litterary term that describes this author technique of using the actions of one or more characters to shine a specific colored light on the actions of another character?

I think you're looking for the term Foil.  I don't happen to have a LitCrit Dictionary on me, but dictionary.com gives this:

Foil, n.  One that by contrast underscores or enhances the distinctive characteristics of another: "I am resolved my husband shall not be a rival, but a foil to me" (Charlotte Brontë).

Classic examples of foils would be:

o Horatio to Hamlet: Horatio lives to tell the tale because he didn't participate, where as Hamlet participated, so didn't get to live - the girlfriend thing makes that a TOTALLY different relationship, man.  Totally.

o The Prince and Pauper from The Prince and the Pauper: These two are diametric opposites, bouncing reflections off one another of Nobility and Commoner.

o The Son from "Raisin In The Sun" to the rest of the cast: Every action the rest of the adult cast does is motivated by this small boy who has, IIRC, 2 lines.  All of their actions, for better or worst, are reflected by his silent observation.

Moving into more contemporary examples:

o Vir Cotto to Londo Mollari from Babylon 5 : Vir is witness to the same darkness as Londo, but where as Londo uses it to corrupt his soul, Vir uses it to fortify his own and resolve to Do Good; the one seems darker because the other chooses the path of light using the same information.

o Fuzzy Stone to Homer Wells from The Cider House Rules: The book, btw, and not the flick.  By Fuzzy's non corporal "acceptance" of abortion, we're given a greater understanding of Homer's struggle.

(Don't laugh, I swear it's true)

o Jay to Silent Bob:  Jay and Silent Bob of Kevin Smith Fame.  Jay is loud, crude, and obnoxious - and these are his good points.  Silent Bob is, well, silent.  He seems even more silent by Jay's flamboyancy, but it forces us to pay more attention to Silent Bob when he does talk.  It seems more profound, more important.  But, without being paired to JaberJaw Jay, he might just be some odd mutey character.  In return, Silent Bob is a foil to Jay: he seems louder than he actually is, more obnoxious than he actually is (well, no, I guess he's pretty obnoxious on his own two feet - but you see where I'm going with this ; ).  I have to say, without having see Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back yet, the best example of this is given in Dogma, which is just an amazing movie in its own standing.  Go see it if you haven't yet.  Go.  Go now.

Foils are excellent ways for us to define our characters, and an element that should be exploited -- but not necessarily the sole domain -- of the GM.  Like Emily said, talk to your GM.  Take her aside.  Explain to her (if you haven't already) what it is exactly you're trying to do/asking her to help with.

If nothing else, it will clarify your expectations with each other and that can only improve your game. : )

[Ron Edwards]

Bingo - "foil" it is. Entry number ... geez, I don't even wanna guess ... into the Forge RPG lexicon.

Thanks Laura!

And also to Jesse, for pinpointing yet another major stylistic difference in play around 'n about the GNS concepts.

Best,
Ron