Access to the inner world of characters

[Mike Holmes]

Were the examples that Ron and I posted not on topic?

Mike

[talysman]

I have been working again on The Court of 9 Chambers recently, trying to get a playtest PDF written up (I have some willing players,) plus I have been watching Godard and Truffaut for some background ideas, plus working on some animation projects, so I've been thinking a lot about camera movement, portraying inner character with external behavior, and many of the other subtopics bobbing around in this thread.

first, although actual camera angles aren't useful in an RPG (unless playing with cinemaphiles, as Chris mentioned,) you can study camera techniques to see what they actually do in order to translate the effect into an RPG. one comment I came across in another forum (for machinima, not RPGs) mentioned that the intensity of emotion in a shot is governed by how much an action fills the screen, while the focus of the shot is likewise determined by what's on screen. close-ups are used for reaction shots because the relevant action -- the character's reaction -- is thus made the focus of the shot and fills the screen.

second: this, really, is all that you can really translate from camera shots into RPGs: what action is "on the screen" and how long/how detailed that action is. it's a technique you can actually see in old medieval literature, especially things like the scottish border ballads. my middle english prof referred to it as "leaping and lingering". describe just a character's eyes and their changing expression to convey an emotion; gloss over a combat and focus on a death scene, as someone has already mentioned. anyone narrating could do this in the game to convey shifts in internal emotion.

other effects, as suggested, would involve inserting a lot of "color" into the scene. uniform color choices would clearly label the mood or meaning of a scene, while conflicting choices make the mood less certain... or paint an image of an actual conflict of moods. in Co9C as it stands now, this has become the actual game mechanic: players pit color against color, motif against motif, in an attempt to dominate a scene and thus move closer to their goal.

and, yes, actually labeling assigning numbers or game mechanics to moods or other inner issues is another important technique. Sorcerer (as Ron has stated) tends to cause actual play to reflect inner character issues because stats representing those issues are the most important mechanic in the game. and although I haven't seen InSpecters yet, the description of the confessional definitely sounds like it is combining inner character issue mechanics with an adaptation of a film/television technique (the cutaway.)

still, there's a caveat: some of the examples I've seen floated in this thread of using film technique tread pretty close on "GM tells player what player's character feels". I think the player should decide what the character feels. the GM -- or anyone else narrating -- can only present a description and hope that the player is affected in the desired manner.

[Johannes]

Were the examples that Ron and I posted not on topic?

Mike

Hi Mike,

I assume that your examples were very much on topic but my problem is that I don't know the games. Short synopsis of the inner world ideas could be useful.

[Johannes]

I highly suspect that traditional oral history/storytelling probably has a good handle on the usage of oral description and communications that we're looking for.  The problem is, we, as a written language culture, have moved away from the intimate familiarity in those tools.
--
While I doubt narration-wise("describing what happens") is much different than oral storytelling, I do know that our communal language of describing how it happens has certainly changed.

- Going over my Kalevala (the Finnish national epic which was assembled from oral epic poetry) I can see that inner world is almost exclusively represented by direct speech of the characters. They just tell in their lines what they feel and want. Now this works for Kalevala but as you say times have changed. We won't do well if we just try to apply the same narration patterns in contemporary role-playing games.

The contemporary convention is that you cannot be sure if the characters are telling the thruth about their inner workings. Long monologues about the emotions and motivations of characters also now fall easily into a pathetic pit and become ironic and ridicilous against the will of the author.

The language has changed as you say but I don't think we can change it back. We can make an agreement that inner world must be reliably represented in the lines of the PCs but this easily changes the focus of exploration from character to color or setting. We get direct access to inner worlds but they are no more the point of the game. In stead of being the Inner world game it will become the Kalevala game.

[Mike Holmes]

[I assume that your examples were very much on topic but my problem is that I don't know the games. Short synopsis of the inner world ideas could be useful.

Sorry, I'll try to explain.

As I said, in Dreamspires, the characters begin play having been thrust into a world of their Dreams where all their real life emotional turmoil is displayed in metaphors of chess, and political machination. The whole game is about the inner life of some character who's external life we have to extrapolate from the inner. There is no play "outside" of the Dreamspire (correct me if I have anything wrong, Matt). If you do a search here, you can find threads on the subject.

Whispering Vault is sorta similar in some ways, I guess.

The Inspectres Confessional mechanic works like this. Each player may, about once per session, stop play and do his confessional. This is supposed to represent the sort of thing you see in reality TV, where someone onthe show goes into a little closet or something, and talks directly to the camera about what's going on in the show. In InSpectres, the player stops play, and then adresses everyone in the same sort of manner, commenting on the current action, and adding to it if they like.

For example, the characters are having a fight at the office about the added expense of loading the Quantum Lactator cream (instead of the usual milk). Bob stops play, and the other players watch as he says in character:

"Well, I thought that Al was really out of line , and risking the group's safety by not springing for the high grade cream. I mean what good is a Quantum Lactator without high quality dairy? Al can be such a cheapskate at times."

Anyhow, after the confessional, given Bob's narration, he has the ability to then assign the "Cheapskate" descriptor to the character Al, which can be used by Al's player to gain bonus dice later.

The effect, however is just what you're looking for, I think. A little time-out where the player speaks in-character directly to the other players as audience, as opposed to as though they were characters.

Ron mentions Sorcerer and Le Mon Mouri. In these games, the character's stats oppose each other in some ways. So the interplay of the mechanics actually represents the inner world mechanically. The obvious example in Sorcerer is the Humanity mechanic that represents how close to going over the edge to inhumanity the character is. In Le Mon Mouri, you have to roll one stat against another had by the same character to accomplish some tasks. So you see the inner world represented by the stats and their interplay.

Mike

[Johannes]

Hi Mike,

This definetly is the sort of thing I mean. Thanks for the explanations. All are clearly examples of inner world access. I have couple questions about them if you don't mind.

What is the position of the PCs in Dreamspires? Is the inner world  which the PCs inhabit an outer world when related to them or is the inner world inhaited by them aslo the inner world of the PCs? Or is the position something else? I know this sounds confusing but this is the simplest way I manage to put it. I'm trying to determine if it is the inner world of the PCs which is given access to or is it an inner world as outer world (setting) thing.

Is it a convention (or rule) in Inspectres that the confessional narration is reliable? In other words, can the confession makers lie or make mistakes about the reality of the game world or is information given in confession absolute? I'm looking for clues to decide if this is more direct or indirect access.

[Mike Holmes]

What is the position of the PCs in Dreamspires? Is the inner world  which the PCs inhabit an outer world when related to them or is the inner world inhaited by them aslo the inner world of the PCs? Or is the position something else? I know this sounds confusing but this is the simplest way I manage to put it. I'm trying to determine if it is the inner world of the PCs which is given access to or is it an inner world as outer world (setting) thing.

I'm not sure I understand. The world that the PCs are thrust into is one of metaphor where their outer world concerns (which would be inner world, no?), are manifest to an extent.

Let me describe it as I remember it. The PC awakens to find that they are not in the real world, but in a surreal dreamstate. Their goal is to get out, eventually and back to the world that they remember as real. But along the way, they have trials and tribulations that are presented as metaphors for their concerns. So, one PC encounters a knight riding down a small child which is representative of the character's concern for their real world child.

A very metaphysical question becomes whether or not the other PCs are some manifestation of each other's sub-conscious minds, or real people in some real world as well.

Does that help?

Is it a convention (or rule) in Inspectres that the confessional narration is reliable? In other words, can the confession makers lie or make mistakes about the reality of the game world or is information given in confession absolute? I'm looking for clues to decide if this is more direct or indirect access.

It's not stated. However, what they narrate as happening must happen when play resumes. For example, I once narrated that Clinton's character was "Careless" and that this led to my character getting a broken arm. Once play resumed, we had to figure out how that happened, and did. But as for whether the feelings expressed are technically "accurate", I'd say not neccessarily. Given the context of the confessional as similar to the TV thing, the player could be lying about how they feel I suppose.

OTOH, the very idea of the confessional in a reality show is to allow real feelings (or what seems to be real feelings) to come out. The idea being that giving the information away from the other people on the show is liberating. But no, it's not dircetly a metaphor for looking inside somebody's head. That all said, it could be just as easily.

I guess I'd ask why you're worried about it. Anything could be illusory. There's no way to know truth on a very metaphysical level. So, given that this sort of mechanic does just fine with it, why worry? I'm really not seeing the concern.

Mike

[clehrich]

I think Mike's description of the InSpectres confessional is consistent with the dramatic "aside," in which a character steps aside and addresses the audience directly.  It seems to me that this device could be more widely used where inner narrative is important.  But I'm not sure that it is generally the case that such narratives -- subjectivity, really -- are always important or essential.  Surely that's a stylistic choice?  I usually see interior narratives being implied through action, with relatively little strong variance between the two.

[Johannes]

Hi Mike,

Thanks again for your explanations they were just the thing I wanted to know. In Dreamspires it was important to me to hear that the in-game stuff represent the real world concerns of the PCs. This IMO makes it a radical case of direct access to the inner world of PCs (which usually is left to indirect access). Sounds like a cool if demanding game. Are players (as opposed to a GM) given authorial power in Dreamspires? This would make it even more radical I guess.

Your description of InSpectres is reliable narration to me. If the confessions affect the in-game reality theyy can be considered to tell the truth about it. At least by producing the reality by telling it. By reliability of narration I don't mean the honesty of the actual player. My concern was that are the confessionals sililar to Real-TV-confessional in that you cannot really trust them to describe the reality in an "objective" manner. Now it seems to me that the InSpectres confessionals are different. The difference is one of direct/indirect access.

Hi clerich,

I agree that direct representation of inner worlds is not always important or even desirable. It is a stylistic choice as you say. Like everything in RPGs it depends on the game and the story being told by it. But I think that it is important to make visible also this choice so that one more "truth" of the "right" way to play is relativized.

[Mike Holmes]

In Dreamspires it was important to me to hear that the in-game stuff represent the real world concerns of the PCs. This IMO makes it a radical case of direct access to the inner world of PCs (which usually is left to indirect access). Sounds like a cool if demanding game. Are players (as opposed to a GM) given authorial power in Dreamspires?

The interesting thing is that the PCs real world never exists in play except that it's created by the reverse engineering of the Dreamspire events. That is, we might not know that the PC even has a daughter until the scene where the concern happens. Once the character resolves their inner turmoil, they are released back into their "real world" thus ending the game for that character. That's the point of play.

Your description of InSpectres is reliable narration to me. If the confessions affect the in-game reality theyy can be considered to tell the truth about it. At least by producing the reality by telling it. By reliability of narration I don't mean the honesty of the actual player. My concern was that are the confessionals sililar to Real-TV-confessional in that you cannot really trust them to describe the reality in an "objective" manner. Now it seems to me that the InSpectres confessionals are different. The difference is one of direct/indirect access.

Hmm. I'm sure that one could lie about the character's inner world. I can say, "I really don't like Bob, becasue he's mean." Interestingly, this means that Bob definitely is "mean" (with mechanics to back it up). But it does not neccessarily mean that the character really doesn't like Bob.

Now, I can't think of why you would, as a player, add that layer of complexity. But in the course of relaying the information in the confessional format, it could occur. Because of the closeness of the cognate. At Origins when we played, we actually arranged it so that everyone sat in seats in rows across from the person who was giving the confessional. Made it seem very much like all the other players were audience watching the character confess on TV.

The other factor that I'm not sure whether it's important or not, is that InSpectres is comedy. Actually, I think that makes it more likely that the player will be honest, strangely. As it's more fun to reveal at these moments to see vulnerability.

Or I may not know what I'm talking about. Certainly I don't think anyone's ever considered this mechanic in this sort of detail. I'm prety sure that Jared's just shaking his head if he's reading.

Mike

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Is it a convention (or rule) in Inspectres that the confessional narration is reliable? In other words, can the confession makers lie or make mistakes about the reality of the game world or is information given in confession absolute? I'm looking for clues to decide if this is more direct or indirect access.

Yes, definitely. One of the important concepts of InSpectres is that not all the information you get is reliable. Witnesses might be confused or mistake, clients might be lying through their teeth, and the characters themselves might be hiding secrets or just plain getting stuff wrong.

The Confessionals work the same way. You're getting the character's thoughts about the game delivered to the players. The character might be crazy, stupid, deceitful, mistaken, etc.

[Johannes]

Hi Jared,

InSpectres sounds like a interesting mix of reliable and unreliable narration. As it looks to me the confessions are just as reliable as the characters who is speaking (potentially unreliable, indirect access, just like real-TV confessions) BUT the confessions mechanically create in-game reality (Bob is mean in Mike's example) which is a case of reliability. However I cannot decide if it's a case of direct access also as it concerns the outer world of the character as well as the subjective perception of the confesser.

How stable is in-game reality in InSpectres? Can one confession make Bob mean and a later confession make him nice again?

[Jared A. Sorensen]

How stable is in-game reality in InSpectres? Can one confession make Bob mean and a later confession make him nice again?

No, simply because the rules prohibit the players from giving two or more characters traits to the same player (this is so everyone gets a chance at being the subject of someone else's Confessional).

One thing to consider is that the other player doesn't *have* to roleplay the assigned character traits (the group gets a bonus if the trait is roleplayed). So while Mike can *say* my character is mean, I can just shrug it off and not play along if I choose.

[Mike Holmes]

So while Mike can *say* my character is mean, I can just shrug it off and not play along if I choose.

That's a good point. It's not reality that's created at all, it's metagame.

OTOH, you do have to play to the described events. That's more telling. But it can still be perceptual. For instance, in the game of InSpectres I rean last night (serendipitously), one player in confessional said that he was unaware that the other female character felt "that way" about him.

Bob, who's character had been tagged as "Feels "That Way" About Kwen" played to it as intended (led to a kiss), but commented that the statement was vague enough that he could have twisted it around a bit.

So, we have a case where we had to play to the characteristic assigned for continutity's sake, but where the "truth" could have been interpereted in a way not intended by the person making the truth. As such, if twisted "properly", the result could have made Kwen (the character making the confessioal), seem like he was exxagerating the female character's feelings.

Which would have been funny, and would make Jared's point. Essentially, the only thing that the confessional does is change continuity, but not in a way that the character can't be a liar, just as in "normal" play.

Complex.

We'll be posting the transcript of play at some point, which may help understand how it works if it's not clear right now.

Mike

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Which would have been funny, and would make Jared's point. Essentially, the only thing that the confessional does is change continuity, but not in a way that the character can't be a liar, just as in "normal" play.

Complex.

Yeah, the Confessional is really just a way of letting the characters speak to the players. And for the character to say, "Hey, I want the game to go in this direction" without the player having to break character, and without the character acknowledging that he's *just* a character in a RPG. And that can be done via assignment of character traits, flashbacks, internal monologue, foreshadowing or any other continuity-busting technique you can think of.

- J