Revisiting Relationship Between Humanity and Premise

[jburneko]

I was just rereading Christopher's description of Biliomania and a very weird thought occured to me.  Doesn't defining Humanity simultaneously define the Premise AND Answer it?  Obviously, the answer is going to be NO, but watch this reasoning:

Premise: Is intellectual knowledge more valuable than other people?
Humanity is... emotional connection to other people.

Okay, so given the Premise say I want to construct a character who's Theme is YES, intellectual knowledge IS more valuable than other people.  BUT given the Humanity defintion, I'm now guaranteed to produce a damnation story.

So what does a theoretical outside observer see while watching/reading this story?  He sees the protagonist choose intellectual knowledge over people and be destroyed for it.  So the reader goes, "Hmmm... This book is all about how people are more important than intellectual knowledge."

So, now I go the other way.  I design a character where the answer is NO, intellectual knowledge is NOT more important than people.  Now, given the Humanity I'm practically guaranteed to walk the path to salvation.

Again from the outside audience view they see a protagonist who rejects his "demons" and finds salvation by choosing real people over his intellectual drives.  Again the READER sees this as, "Hey, This book is all about how people are more important than intellectual knowledge."

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Given the Humanity defintion there is no way for me to create a story in which I "prove" that Intellectual Knowledge really IS more important than other people because if I set out on that path the Humanity definition will destroy me and an any half-awake audience will see that as demontrationg that the OPPOSITE is the real "message" (Theme) of the story.

It's like Proof By Contradiction.
Assumption: Intellectual Knowledge Is More Important Than People
(Crunch, Crunch, Crunch)
Result: Character is damned. -- Damnation is Bad, So the Opposite must be true.
Conclusion (Theme): Intellectual Knowledge must NOT be more important than other people.

Okay, now that I've stated the same thing three different ways, tell me what I'm missing.

Jesse

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jesse,

Four things:

1) I don't think any story proves anything anyway.  It's all an artificial construct to start with, so I could set up a movie like "Signs" and "prove" that faith in god will save your family... But not really.  Faith in god saves your family in that movie yes.... But we haven't proven it in the world outside the story.

2) I see the Premise answer as the proof for the character who is answering the question.  John Nash proves that for him, people are more important than intellectual knowledge.  (Atcually, this fits the movie very well.)  Thus, a player playing Sorcerer gets to try out a character who could go either way during the course of play.  For my money, it is the experience of playing such a character and identifying with him that's fun.  To go through the process of those choices is enjoyable.

3) The premise provides a focus for content, without providing content.  So, we can keep moving forward in an organized fashion, and still not know what events will take place.  Hell, we don't even know if a character is going to lose his humanity or banish his demon until the last scene.  It's the process of story, not the proof at the end, that this is all about.  (In my opinion.)

4) One can actually make this quite complex. For example, if I've got a character in BiblioMania who is determined to find the cure to a plague sweeping the earth, but he loses his humanity by murdering his family to get the cure we're left with something trickier.  

There's absolutely no reason players can't rig the closer of their Kickers in such a fashion that something new is opened up.  

Note that this *is* tricky.  The original ending of Minority Report had Tom Cruise's character narrating: "The next year, murders were up 600%" or somesuch.  One ending closes the story, the other leaves the premise in the chest of the audience as they walk out of theater.  I happen to like the second sort of ending, but most folks like to leave the movie in theater and not have anything floating around inside of them as they head out to their cars.  But this too can be done in an RPG.

But, again, finally, I don't like the word Proof in this context.  I think Egri is wrong about a few things, and this is one of them.  (For a different view, check out Walter Kerr's "How Not to Write a Play" -- which is an absolute refutation of Egri's book by one of New York's late and great theater critics.)  However, as a tool for improvsing a story by a group of people, I think it's terrific.  But again, not proof.  A focus.  How does each character answer the question?  If a character loses his Humanity in BiblioMania in pursuit of Knowledge, then he's proven that knowledge mattered more than other people to him/.  That's all that matters to me.

Christopher

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I may be in the minority, but I always though the answer to an Egri-style Premise should be, "I don't know." And you play the game to find your answer.

Also, shock, I don't think Humanity has to really mean anything or intersect with the Premise to be an effective force in the game. I kinda dropped the ball in Schism by making Humanity mean something (as Ron suggests in Sorcerer's Soul). In Schism, Humanity is little more than a meter that counts down your character's existence on this planet. It interacts with the game mechanics a little bit here and there (mostly as a control attribute for Clairvoyants) but it's not much more than that. Humanity is just how human you are. Most people are pretty human...

EDIT: Schism may be slightly aberrant in that the Premise isn't some intellectual philosophizing...it's a pretty straight question about what will happen right before your character dies. The circumstances. So it's less...airy? I don't know.

[Bankuei]

Hi Jesse,

The Humanity/Demon/Premise trinity is the core of Sorcerer, and what makes it fly.  I also think that the most important point is summed up with,"How far will you go?", which in a way, also is, "Is it worth it?"

I think there may indeed be several cases where "damnation"  is worth it.  You can look at Humanity 0 as being the final choice to go over that edge.  In 9th Gate, the protagonist decides that knowledge is worth damnation, in Pi, the protagonist turns back at the end.  In both cases you have an interesting story that instead of simply answering the question, provokes questions within the audience as to the nature of the premise, making them have to consider where they themselves stand in relation to it.

Of course, you could also run a simple story with a moral ala Faust.  But  the moral question is intended to run much deeper with a lot more implications than simply Humanity 0 is bad.  Consider What Dreams may Come, as one case where the hero decides love is more important than damnation, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, where Chow Yun Fat's character gives up enlightenment for his love.  In both cases the choice is made on the part of the protagonist.  In Sorcerer, one can look simply at Charnel Gods as an example where damnation and destruction of the world may save reality itself.

The key point here is to provide 2 options which both have some merit or appeal in the premise.  I don't know too many people who can honestly say that Knowledge is worth more than People, although if you can hook the players with the idea, if they buy into the premise that Knowlege might be worth more than people(contact with god? cure for AIDS? the ability to reshape reality?), then you have an interesting story on hand.

The real question comes up in: What does Humanity 0 mean?  Damnation in the game sense simply means: Losing control of your character, ending their story, or a major re-write of the character.  None of these have to be a bad thing.  Consider the Crouching Tiger issue, except define Humanity 0 as enlightenment and Humanity as Attachments to this world.   In this case, the hero passes away NOT choosing enlightenment.  Humanity, in its vaguest sense, means, "that which makes you human"  which can be flaws and vices as much as good things.

When you do this, now damnation itself seems like a potentially attractive option.  Which is one way to do it.  The other is to make the power given by taking humanity reducing actions worth the cost.  A third way to look at it is Humanity(as Ron put it) as a thematic meter, letting you know how close a character is to the end of their story.  

Does any of this help?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

You're missing the fundamental point that a Theme is created (= Premise is answered) by a character in action, and the fate of that character. It's not something you say in words in the absence of those fictional events.

What you're saying is what you think the Theme ought to be, in the abstract.

But look ... take Christopher's Bibliomania. I'll make up a character on the spot: Joyce McDougall, the sociology professor who has turned the entire campus into an experiment without anyone realizing it. Her demon is the Parasite that inhabits and animates the now-dead body of her old thesis advisor, who reads and critiques all of her experimental writeups to this day.

Her Kicker? No problem - her brother, an anti-intellectual roughneck, brings by his pal Frank. Frank is a sweaty, grunting, streetwise, ex-con pile o' male danger, and Joyce goes completely off her head about him. The Kicker is specifically that she's finally thrown herself at him, and they're having sex on a half-busted bed in a seedy hotel, and she looks up during the action to see her demon, standing in the doorway, staring at them.

Now. Where's the Premise answered? Nowhere. We don't know what she's going to do, whether it will work out well or badly, what the demon will do, or anything. We don't know what Frank's current plans are, although I certainly hope the GM will make them very criminal and foolish. Will Joyce end up with Frank, or not? If so, will it that be in middle-class heartwarming bliss, or shot dead in some showdow with the cops? Or, wait, is that all secondary and the real question is whether she gets the Nobel Prize? Or ends up with her eyes bugging out of her head as she waits, gun concealed, to shake the winner's hand?

I really don't see how you can perceive Theme to be occurring when we haven't even discovered what precise shape the Premise shakes out into, in order for specific conflicts to arise, during play.

I also think you might consider the following. You wrote:

Given the Humanity defintion there is no way for me to create a story in which I "prove" that Intellectual Knowledge really IS more important than other people because if I set out on that path the Humanity definition will destroy me and an any half-awake audience will see that as demontrationg that the OPPOSITE is the real "message" (Theme) of the story.

You're overlooking the fundamental point that Humanity, in Sorcerer, is not reliable in individual cases. You can commit horrid atrocities and do all the demonic rituals imaginable, and the luck of the dice can keep you away from the edge. You can only barely brush the edge of unethical behavior and never even think of a demon, and a few bad rolls will put you there. The Sorcerer metaverse is not spiritually reliable.

This is fundamental to the game. If Humanity loss/gain were just a chart with a bunch of actions listed on the left and a bunch of "how much" listed on the right, then play doesn't mean shit. That is, I think, how you're looking at it. It would mean, yeah, that if Humanity is X, then X is good, and doing X is good, and well, X is good.

But Sorcerer play doesn't work that way. Have you really thought about the four possible outcomes, per character?

Joyce gets the Nobel Prize for her sociological conclusions, and she's destroyed every human relationship on her way to get there. Her demon praises her and gives her her "real" Ph.D.

Joyce gets the Nobel Prize for her sociological conclusions, and she's preserved great relationships with the school, her brother, and Frank. Her demon was Banished long ago in the process.

Joyce gives up the Nobel Prize or other intellectual-achievement ambitions and becomes a no-'count teacher at a minor community college, helping others rather than self-aggrandizing/comprehending stuff. Her demon was Banished long ago during the events that led her here.

Joyce gives up or fails the Nobel Prize or other ambitions, but now she and the demon live in some flophouse, and she makes money by hooking at the bus stop so she can still work out her equations on the chalkboard in her crummy room.

Different themes implied here, eh? Would you say that #1 and #2 "say" the same things? I wouldn't.

And don't forget that the story's immediate venue (which in this case happened to be the Nobel Prize and the presence of Frank) can be worked out slowly in the first few sessions of play, rather than being canned and active before play begins.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for the replies.  That cleared up about 90% of my question.  The confusion mostly came from me seeing the Premise as being either A or B with no continum in between.  Something, I suspected to be the source of my confusion before I event started this thread.  Also Ron's statement about the Sorcerer metaverse not being spiritually reliable speaks to my original kneejerk assumption about what a "demon" is; namely that Existance of Demons = Objective Stable Morality.

However, there is still a part of me that squints and goes.  Hell, YEAH, those four different outcomes all say the same thing.  They just say it differently.

Abstractly speaking #1 and #4 are fundamentally the same and #2 and #3 are fundamentally the same.  And since #1 and #4 are emotionally undesirable outcomes and #2 and #3 are emotionally desireable outcomes from an audiance point of view #1, #2 #3 and #4 ALL ultimately communicate the same thing the difference just being positive vs. negative example.

#1 and #4 say DON'T do this because you'll end up like this: Cheaping #1 or Destroying #4 the goal.

#2 and #3 say DO this because you'll be happier: The goal takes on greater meaning or smaller goals take on greater value.

As I say, I can see the DEGREE of difference.  The first is a chilling cheaping of the goal while the fourth is the frightening notion that even once the goal ceases to be obtainable she continues to obsessively pursue it.

But all four are abstractly saying the same thing: When you put intellectual pursuits above people you lose out on something and when you put people above intellectual pursuits you're a better person for it.

Jesse

P.S. Yes, I'm exagerating the point, but I see things clearer in exagerations.

[Alan]

Hi all,

One fiction writer's definition of theme is "the author's idea of the right way to face a particular challenge."  The theory holds that good fiction revolves around a moral assertion.  Characters exist to explore different approaches to the challenge and exist on different positions on the moral scale in relation to the challenge and each other.  

In Sorcerer, Humanity tracks this pretty well.  Also, defining Humanity, the events that cause it to fluctuate, and the consequences of low Humanity all define the moral scale of the game to be played.

I think Jesse is on to something.  At a certain level of abstraction, Humanity, once defined, provides the "answer" to the Premise question.

[Michael S. Miller]

Here's the kernel of the idea:

Given the Humanity defintion there is no way for me to create a story in which I "prove" that Intellectual Knowledge really IS more important than other people because if I set out on that path the Humanity definition will destroy me and an any half-awake audience will see that as demontrationg that the OPPOSITE is the real "message" (Theme) of the story.

Note the part I bolded. Such a thing is NOT a given in Sorcerer. The game requires you to define what Humanity means to you. As Chris said, you can "prove" that Intellectual Knowledge is more important than other people by simply defining Humanity as "Knowledge."

So, while the first step is a doozy, don't forget that the game empowers you to choose which direction to take it. The game may act as a machine to thresh out the thematic elements you've chosen to explore, but that's what it's built to do ... to give your ideas a workout.

[Alan]

Note the part I bolded. Such a thing is NOT a given in Sorcerer. The game requires you to define what Humanity means to you.

As I understand it, Sorcerer requires the group to define what Humanity means for a particular series of games.  This is not the same as an individual definition for each player.  In fact, this overall definition is what establishes the overall ethos of a given series of sessions, which I believe is what Jesse is suggesting.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

Sometimes you fascinate me in the extent to which you can talk yourself into something ...

since #1 and #4 are emotionally undesirable outcomes and #2 and #3 are emotionally desireable outcomes from an audiance point of view

Dude ... without need for debate, tagging the outcomes like this is fallacious. All four are represented in the relevant literature and film and myth. All four are cathartic. All four are emotionally desirable. All four are "good story."

Once you get past that stumbling block, the rest of your concern evaporates.

I am really coming to think that your best bet, at this point, is to be a player and not a GM. You are very invested in certain outcomes, in thematic terms, and every time we have these discussions, it's about letting go of that investment as a Narrativist GM. And it's becoming clear to me that expressing those investments is important to you.

Time to grab a character sheet and to realize that if you want to say something by playing Sorcerer, then you find a good bass player so you can rip out some solo.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Dude ... without need for debate, tagging the outcomes like this is fallacious. All four are represented in the relevant literature and film and myth. All four are cathartic. All four are emotionally desirable. All four are "good story."

Whoa!  BIG MISCOMMUNICATION.  I understand that all four outcomes are desirable and "good story" from an authorial point of view.  I'm talking about from a sympathetic audience point of view.  Think, undesirable outcome = tragety, desirable outcome = comedy or some such.  If anything I would probably be happier as an audience member with outcome #1 or #4 just because I'm a sucker for ruin and damnation endings.  But from an empathic/sympathetic POV they are undesirable.  If WE were Joyce, WE would not want to turn out like #1 or #4.

Romeo and Juliet comiting suicide is an emotionally undesirable outcome.  Romeo and Juliet is not a bad story.

Is that clearer?

The WHOLE POINT to having an ending like #1 or #4 is for the author to shake his finger at the audiance and say, "Now, go home and think about what you have seen and if you ever find yourself here, don't be like Joyce."  Conversely the WHOLE POINT to endings like #2 and #3 is for the author to present an exemplary hero and say, "Can you relate to this?  Good, this is how I think a real hero and human being would behave here maybe you should consider behaving like this too."

My point is that all four outcomes serve the same purpose from a morality tale POV.  All four outcomes are there to illustrate the same point: That prioritizing Intellectual Knowledge over Other Human beings is a BAD idea.  Outcomes #1 and #4 show us what happens when someone prioritizes Intellectual Knowledge over Other Human beings.  Outcomes #2 and #3 show us the opposite.

Is this any clearer?

Jesse

[Le Joueur]

Just curious Jesse (and Alan),

Simple question: do you play Sorcerer to 'find the answers?'[/list:u]So what if all four point to the same answer.  When you start, have you already figured out if you're going to do the emotionally desirable or the emotionally undesirable?

More importantly have you already chosen

why you shouldn't put intellectualism ahead of humanism (or however you choose to describe it).

So what if all cases prove the same point, what's important is how they do it.  Will our hero make that last minute transformation and go from doomed to saved?  Sure both outcomes 'prove the same point,' what matters is how they prove it.

It's not the destination that matters, but the road taken.[/list:u]You seem fond of reductio ad absurdum arguments; try this one.  Let's say that Premise/Demon/Humanity of X/Y/Z could lead to

two different conclusions and let's make those opposites.  One affirms principles society is based on; the other makes the opposite case, that society is pointless.  It doesn't really matter what makes these points.

Wouldn't you feel disappointed if society turned out to be pointless?[/list:u]You seem to be falling for the 'deconstructionist fable.'  The idea that

abstracting rather than reducing can lead to good results.  Well, you know what literature has taught me?  There are only one set of answers.  If you feel behooved to abstract a game into four results and find that they all 'mean' the same thing, that's good.  Isn't there only one lesson to be learned weighing the issues you've presented?

What intrigues us in literature is not what the 'answer' is (I don't think it should come as a surprise¹).  We know before we pick up the book who wins.  We know before we read the script 'what the point' is.  What we don't know is how that will be made manifest; we don't know 'why' it will be true this time.

Y'see, as far as I can tell, every telling of every tale simply gives us answers we already know.  What makes the interesting ones interesting is that we don't know how we will be told.  You present a classic, yet impenetrable dichotomy.  Will the message be demonstrated by someone failing to abide by it being destroyed or by someone following it being redeemed?  When you start the game, you can't know.

I think you've abstracted one step too far; thinking that the answer is the point of play rather than the answering.  Certainly, if you already know that your character is irredeemable and unavoidably bound for destruction, what's the point in playing?  Every character who's so bent on destroying themselves must have at least a noticable chance at redemption or they're pointless.  The same is true for the saints; they have to have at least one weak point that might just tip them over or there's nothing to play.

The whole point I've been trying to make with Scattershot's Mystiques and Intrigue is that once the mystery has gone out of it, end it quickly.  You're making it sound like 'the answer' is supposed to be the mystery; it isn't.  How 'the answer' is given is where the mystery lies.  Like the gentleman said, "It isn't where you go, but how you get there that counts."

Fang Langford

¹ The only surprises I've liked fall into two groups (if you must abstract them so much); either I gathered wrong about what 'the real message' was about or I've followed the wrong exemplar.  The message is still a welcome one, whether I could have guessed what it was or who was carrying it.

[clehrich]

Jesse,

It seems to me that a nifty solution to this is provided by Faust, which is no simple morality tale.  You've set up a two-part syllogism:

If (like Faust) I decide that intellectual knowledge is more important than people,

Then I am damned to Hell.

So far, so Faust.

But the whole point about Goethe's Faust at least is that he knows this.  He's not selling his soul because he's a bad person, really.  He believes that there is something noble, something infinitely human and wonderful, about the search for truth, whatever the cost, and so he believes that one brief flash of truth and knowledge in our truth-empty human world is actually worth Hell.  But when the play ends, do we know whether he's right?  Not really.  If it's done extremely well, Faust is a guy who's simultaneously a true hero, not an anti-hero or something, but is also quite literally damned to eternity in Hell.  Was it worth it?

I think setting it up as a strict polarity misses the point.  For Faust, humanity is what damns him, because the choice of intellectual knowledge over humanity is precisely part of what it means to be human.  If Humanity is defined as prioritizing people over intellect, at the same time it must be recognized that this is a human choice, not a demonic or angelic one.  It means nothing to beings from Over There -- they already know the Truth, because they see it every day outside their windows.  Faust's tragedy is that he sees that one possible ultimate expression of humanity will also require an absolute choice for inhumanity.

Does that help?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi.  Just wanted to offer two things.

First, given the set up for BiblioMania, someone might be working like hell to save his child from a life threatening disease -- successfully saving his son but losing his emotional connection with others. This might be viewed as a "heroic" success.  And it would be heroic specifically because the rules tagged the growing loss of Humanity along the way.  Without the cost to the need, he'd just be a good dad. The conflict makes it compelling.

Second, as to emotionally satisifying for options one through four above...  Specifically, number one... Silence of the Lambs ends with Dr. Lector (clearly clarices demon), calling to congratualate her on getting her "real" FBI badge.  I don't know if its "good" to form attachments to sociopaths, but in this case it was compelling.

I'm not so concerned about morals as a story teller. I am very concerned about compelling.  Notice that's what driving the two points above. The moral issues are the fuel for what's compelling, but ultimately not the shiny car itself.

Christopher

[Alan]

Just curious Jesse (and Alan),

Simple question: do you play Sorcerer to 'find the answers?'[/list:u]So what if all four point to the same answer.  When you start, have you already figured out if you're going to do the emotionally desirable or the emotionally undesirable?

Hi Fang,

No and no.


First, let me say that the theme dynamic which I think Jesse is getting at is the heart of why Sorcerer is a great game.

Myself, I would not focus so much on "the author shaking his finger at the audience and saying 'now go home and think about this.'"  Modern fiction is more subtle and so is Sorcerer.

As I said in a previous post, a good story explores behavior around some choice of right or wrong.  This choice is implicit in the Premise question posed. As Ron and Jesse have said, there are many outcomes that are emotionally satisfying to the audience.  In every novel, and every series of Sorcerer games, there will be characters that explore different approaches and different outcomes.

***The audience (readers or players) finds this exploration engaging because of the tension between the character's choices and the underlying moral compass.***

Every Sorcerer campaign (for lack of a better word) can define Humanity differently - but once defined, a standard has been set for that game.  All answers to the Premise question will then have consequences based on that standard.  Through this method, the standard becomes an underlying, tacit  message which humans, being social creatures, infer from play.

In other words, the moral question implicit in the Premise was answered when Humanity was defined, before play even started.  This is what makes the range of actions and outcomes engaging.  This is what makes the narrativist heart of Sorcerer beat.