"Playing my character"

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

John, I disagree with you regarding the omnipresent existence of theme in terms that make any sense to the GNS level or bracket of analysis. Remember, we are talking about the process and activities of play, not merely subject matter. The question is whether the behaviors and interactions of the real people, while playing, are investments in producing those themes.

Playing Tunnels & Trolls, at the moment, has no shred of such activity for me and my group. I'm thoroughly enjoying throwing awful and funny threats at them, both in terms of the underlying "secrets" that they don't know, and in terms of set-piece challenges. They seem to be enjoying the heights and depths of performing well or badly, both in terms of dice outcomes and in terms of tactics (Julie will never again let her character forget to picked up her dropped staff ...).

Theme? This is Tunnels & Trolls; theme can kiss my pink ass, as far as play is concerned. If someone wants to wander up with goggles and a guide-book, and maybe find some "theme" outcome in terms of Man Vs. Monster or some shit like that, he can. It would be maybe valid in terms of pure content/subject ... but not in terms of actual play and interactions.

Now let's take a look at a hefty Call of Cthulhu game I was in a while ago, run by Terry Gant (the Forge's Doc Midnite). I believe I played the obnoxious journalist sort; a few scenes in, it was clear that my character would be one of the first to go whackoo-oo. Backing up, looking at the whole run, Elder Dark Horror did indeed descend on the luxury ocean liner, and horrible existential despire reigned supreme over all.

Theme? Sure. But not theme generated through play. It was theme embedded, rock-solid and immobile, in the Lovecraft/Derleth source material and prior assumptions of play. It was theme as a given piece of the picture, set just as firmly as our characters' starting SAN levels.

Again, the outside observer can come in and say, "Ooh, theme, everyone!" And again, the Narrativist-detector would give a funky raspberry noise for a "Negative on that trajectory, Houston."

The key is whether the people, while playing, are addressing Premise through their activities and interactions. Is that "what they're doing," is the question. Awareness, consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant. But so is the presence of Premise/Theme as interjected by an outside viewer who is considering topical subject matter only, independently or aside from the actual interactions and demonstrable priorities of the real people.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

I disagree with you regarding the omnipresent existence of theme in terms that make any sense to the GNS level or bracket of analysis. Remember, we are talking about the process and activities of play, not merely subject matter. The question is whether the behaviors and interactions of the real people, while playing, are investments in producing those themes.  

I didn't mean for my previous statement to be at the GNS level.  I'm just saying that dramatic analysis can always be applied to the narrative of play.  However, as you say, this is at least incomplete at the GNS level, because RPGs are not fixed media like books or movies -- they are interactive.  Besides differences in narrative, there are differences in the process of how the narrative is created (i.e. the process of actual play).  

The key is whether the people, while playing, are addressing Premise through their activities and interactions. Is that "what they're doing," is the question. Awareness, consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant. But so is the presence of Premise/Theme as interjected by an outside viewer who is considering topical subject matter only, independently or aside from the actual interactions and demonstrable priorities of the real people.  

Boy, this seems very imponderable to me.  So the question between Simulationism and Narrativism play as a player would be: Is my role-playing subconsciously focussed on addressing a moral Premise, or is it more focussed on exploring a psychologically deep Character?  Does that seem right as a question?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

Nope. To my way of thinking, you're going deeper into obscure depths, rather than stepping out of the eddies and swirls onto dry land. "Subconscious?" Pfeh.

Never mind what's going on 'way inside one's head. I'm talking about interactions, communications, and shared imaginings among people. Talking, looks, gestures, dice-rolling (or whatever), and stuff like that: actual play.

Chris Chinn (bankuei) is absolutely right when he says that people's ability actually to recount what they did, during role-playing, is incredibly limited. It's a skill I've been trying to develop, and others have been trying to develop, mainly in the Actual Play forum.

I'll put it as clearly as I can for the topic of this thread ("playing one's character"). Getting into one's character, emotionally speaking, is Exploration. I'm not talking in an acting sense, which has to do with depiction, but rather in the sense of really enjoying this fictional construct and communicating that enjoyment through play.

Now the question is, what is the Exploration for?

Is that the priority of the person's play (or the person's play in the context of this particular group)? Can it be observed to override options such as addressing a Premise or entering into a social pressure/performance situation? If so, then we're talking about Simulationist play.

Note that if the Explorative Situation and the venue of its outcome are fixed (as is often the case in, say, playing Call of Cthulhu or many other games), then we're still talking about Simulationist play, because the Character Exploration follows fixed paths as a form of enjoyable pastiche.

Or, as is I think often very likely the case, is the Explorative enjoyment of one's character a tool or means ... fast or slow, loudly or quietly ... to get into one of those metagame priorities? Specifically, the only two I can think of or can speak to having observed, namely Step On Up or Story Now.

In practice, I consider both the experience of these priorities, and the observation of them in those actual interactions, to be extremely easy to spot, once you clear out certain cobwebs about "story," "plot," and similar distractions, and once you get away from talking about characters as if they were Entities instead of fictional constructs who exist in a communicative medium.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

Boy, this seems very imponderable to me.  So the question between Simulationism and Narrativism play as a player would be: Is my role-playing subconsciously focussed on addressing a moral Premise, or is it more focussed on exploring a psychologically deep Character?  Does that seem right as a question?

I'm gonna muddy the waters just a little more.

Between those two criteria the only difference I see (if you can even find one) is that addressing the Premise requires a conflict, and exploring a psychologically deep character does not.  However, once you get to actual play, you will almost certainly have conflict.  If you are just playing a psychologically deep character all Simmy like the character will respond to the conflict based on his beliefs/values/experience/etc.  Once this happens you've got a theme that propels the character through conflict.

So, it only takes one player (most often the GM, but I don't see that as necessary) to introduce a conflict and you're playing vanilla Nar.  Nar ripple effect in a Sim|Char pond.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi cruciel,

Looks like we cross-posted, but that's OK. Here's my thoughts on your point.

1. What you describe is exactly the case for how Gamist play relates to Simulationist play. It's the thin end of the wedge. As I discuss in the Gamism and Simulationism essays, the outcomes are pretty simple - the group "goes Gamist," or the offending party separates out relatively painlessly, or they all limp along with kind of a Grendel-member who gets tolerated.

2. It is potentially the case for Narrativist play as well, and in fact, my reading of John's accounts of play lead me to think that his group likes what might be called "muted" Narrativism. This isn't abashed or low-yield or anything weird, it's just ... well, quiet. To use my bass metaphor, we're talking about Pink Floyd, in which the bass (GM) produces long, sustained, held notes for a long time, providing a signficant platform upon which the solo instruments wander and interact as they will.

And that would be really cool, except that control issues can arise that are far more subtle and play out in, if you can believe it, even uglier forms, than in Sim/Gamist mixes.

For instance, if play-policy is constructed such that one person wields far more control over outcomes than anyone else, then that person becomes the focus of terrifying social problems among the group. That's where railroading GMs come from, and where a form of powergaming that has nothing to do with Gamism comes from.

Oh, I should emphasize that the above two paragraphs apply to all Sim/Narr conflicts, not just to the form of play I'm inferring (perhaps wrongly) from John's accounts. But the problem I'm describing is very, very common in Drama-heavy system play.

So, to sum up, yes, you're right - if the group goes with the ripples, once they're introduced.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

Ron,

Agreed.

I think a group that heavily weights Char all around the table seems to help avoid the Sit/Char doom ("I must explore Sit, therefore Char shall be a variable that is controlled" versus "Screw you hippy, I can't explore crap without decision making power).

Also, I was just going to post an edit stating my use of the word 'conflict' was unclear.  I meant conflict in the 'make a decision about what to do about this' sense, not conflict in the 'ogres leap from the trees' sense.  So, using the Gamist bent definition of the word I could definitely see the same thing happening as a Gamist ripple. Though, I think Sit or System would be a much better candidate for people going with the ripple (as a generalization only).  But, now I'm drifting off topic, so I'm going to shut up.

EDIT:  The use of the word conflict is still unclear.  I suppose we have terms for what I meant:  Nar conflict, not Gam conflict.  I probably should've just said that to begin with.   (also, minor tweaks for clarity)

[John Kim]

Getting into one's character, emotionally speaking, is Exploration. I'm not talking in an acting sense, which has to do with depiction, but rather in the sense of really enjoying this fictional construct and communicating that enjoyment through play.

Now the question is, what is the Exploration for?

Is that the priority of the person's play (or the person's play in the context of this particular group)? Can it be observed to override options such as addressing a Premise or entering into a social pressure/performance situation? If so, then we're talking about Simulationist play.

Well, here's the tricky part.  This is familiar territory since it is exactly the sort of thing I hashed out with David Berkman and Kevin Hardwick on rgfa.  How do you show that Exploration has priority over addressing a Premise, or vice-versa?  From the way it is framed, the question suggests that sometimes by acting purely in-character, I will fail to address a Premise.  That is, if I prioritized following character I would do X; while if I prioritized addressing Premise I would do Y.  

However, this at least naively implies that in order to address Premise, I would have to act contrary to my character.  That doesn't seem right with me.  

So here's my question:  How does this happen?  Can you suggest circumstances where acting in-character would be contrary to addressing Premise?  If not, then how does the clash of priorities occur?  

(I have some of my own answers on the issue, but that'll wait for another post, I think.  I think there certainly are trade-offs here, but I see them as being pretty complex.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

Can you suggest circumstances where acting in-character would be contrary to addressing Premise? If not, then how does the clash of priorities occur?

I'll count the ways ... and then make a crucial point.

1. The phrase "in-character" may be used to justify or describe many actions that you or I might not consider playing in-character. "I don't do anything," at the most fundamental turtle-player level is often justified using this phrase. Hence here it's associated with dysfunction.

2. The Turku Manifesto idealizes playing in-character to such an extent that communicating the character's sensations and fictional experience to others is considered poor role-playing, if it involves getting out of character to the least cognitive degree. Hence here it's Exploration of Character as the top priority, which is to say, Simulationist play.

3. It may be considered an Explorative justification, or for that matter, a strategic ploy in various sorts of Gamist play, especially those which entail conflict of interest among characters. Gamist applications of Amber play, for instance, are heavily invested in "what my character would do" instances of play.

4. And finally, as implied by my Call of Cthulhu example, playing in-character to the extent that one is recapitulating or reinforcing a concretized Theme rather than an open-for-address Premise, is not Narrativist. It's "story," but in the sense of pastiche only - which is to say, Exploration of Situation as the top priority, with Exploration of Character being a fairly fixed means to that end.

Now for my crucial point: it is impossible to address Premise by acting contrary to one's player-character. Story Now (= the addressing of Premise) and for that matter, Step On Up, are predicated on successful and enjoyable Exploration of all five elements of play. And obviously, successfully Dreaming is too, at the most basic level.

Therefore the fear or perception of "I must act against my character in order to 'do the story right'" is utterly unfounded in reference to successful play of any GNS stripe. It is a red herring that amounts to creating word salad, then fearing what the sentence "says."

The only sense in which this fear makes sense is when the outcomes of play are under disproportionate control by one player (often the GM), and the other players are being railroaded - which is to say, we are now talking about the realm of dysfunction rife with catch-phrases, code-phrases, and power-trips, rather then the realm of successful role-playing and having fun in the first place.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

A little belatedly, we had an excellent thread related to the idea of consciously addressing premise a while back. My recollection is that Gareth (contracycle) described his game, which he thought was simulationist because the characters just did what they would do without anyone intentionally addressing theme; but that I and several others pointed out that it was rife with theme--the entire game revolved around personal commitments and relationship issues, and people did very improbable things to be involved in scenes in which these were being explored.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to find it right now....

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The thread that comes to my mind is 7th Sea: Illusionism in practice. I just re-read it and consider it foundational text for understanding my points in this one.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Therefore the fear or perception of "I must act against my character in order to 'do the story right'" is utterly unfounded in reference to successful play of any GNS stripe. It is a red herring that amounts to creating word salad, then fearing what the sentence "says."

The only sense in which this fear makes sense is when the outcomes of play are under disproportionate control by one player (often the GM), and the other players are being railroaded - which is to say, we are now talking about the realm of dysfunction rife with catch-phrases, code-phrases, and power-trips, rather then the realm of successful role-playing and having fun in the first place.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

It seems a bit of a narrow way to look at it (although your use of the words "to do the story right" may be what's really problematic here): if I've established some fundamental aspect of my character prior to a decision and then I have two choices--one of which to stick with that prior-characterization and one that will lead to what I think is a really cool story, can't there be internal conflict?

If I have a character I've defined as a pragmatic bad-ass who doesn't give an enemy a fair chance in a fight--and has a sneak attack planned against an adversary I've got an IC course of action.

Then I learn the villain is going to be attending a major party with lots of important and interesting people and the PC's are invited. My attack is scheduled go down the night before the party.

I, as a player, feel a conflict between a decision I feel is true to the establsihed character vs. one that I feel would be a really cool and satisfying climax to play out.

Now, this doesn't really address "theme" or GNS-defined-Narrative play but niether does "do the story right."*

-Marco
* it looks to me like this is another bit of GNS focus on inter-group Player-GM dysfunction rather than on personal insight into what one enjoys.

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

Bluntly? No. Or rather, not uniquely. This is no more than what any creative author deals with in any instance of story creation.

You're talking about alternate sources of satisfaction. The only answer is, "Pick which one you want most."

If so many thousands of script-writers, novelists, short-story writers, song-writers in many cases, comics writers, cartoonists, bards, raconteurs, and joke-tellers can deal with it, I think that the role-player can too.

Here's the part that might trip people up. The social circumstances of play, as opposed to solo authorship, do act as a context and possible constraint, just as any medium operates in some kind of context and set of constraints. Which is to say, who says? Who has authority over these choices? Most role-players' experiences have led them to dysfunctional answers as well as to functional non-Narrativist answers (i.e. some of the people get no authority and thus cannot themselves address Premise in play). For functional Narrativist play, the social circumstances follow the band metaphor: do your thing, but it's our thing too, and we're listening to you, and you're up - don't suck. People who can do this can play Narrativist, just as people who can Step On Up without whining or cringing can play Gamist.

I'm extremely disinclined to enter into a long string of Socratic back-and-forth on this topic. Everyone, please think about cutting to the chase when making a point.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

No. Or rather, not uniquely. This is no more than what any creative author deals with in any instance of story creation.

You're talking about alternate sources of satisfaction. The only answer is, "Pick which one you want most."

If so many thousands of script-writers, novelists, short-story writers, song-writers in many cases, comics writers, cartoonists, bards, raconteurs, and joke-tellers can deal with it, I think that the role-player can too.

I don't think that Marco is saying that he can't deal with the choice -- only that it is a choice, and that role-players (like all other creators) can go either way.  For example, Ursula Le Guin in her essays about writing describes the experience of having a character take on a life of its own.  She goes with what the character says.  Other writers experience it differently, though, and find character to be a more malleable thing.  Someone here quoted Nabokov as describing his characters as slaves to him, as I recall.  

These are parallel to many choices faced in RPGs.  I'll start a different thread about general parallels to fiction-writing, though.  

The topic here is about how to play your character, though.  In Marco's example, my clear instinct would be to follow the character and make my attack the night before the party.  I might be convinced against that if it would upset the other players or GM, but if that wasn't an issue I would almost certainly make the attack in the way my character sees as best.  Why?  To me, I see that as the choice with the most meaning.  On the other hand, another player might choose to wait until after or during the party -- presumably because he thought it would be more fun and/or more meaningful.  

I would be curious about Ron's example of the journalist he played in Terry Gant's Call of Cthulhu game.  How would you have played that character differently if it were a Narrativist game?  What choices did you make that went with Sim instead of Nar?

[Marco]

Marco,

Bluntly? No. Or rather, not uniquely. This is no more than what any creative author deals with in any instance of story creation.

You're talking about alternate sources of satisfaction. The only answer is, "Pick which one you want most."

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,
I don't think I get this. It looks like the answer was actually "Bluntly? Yes--but not uniquely."

But, here's why it's relevant and unique:

In RPG's, unlike traditional narrative media the same person is usually not responsible for both situation and action. Even in Universalis, where there is no GM, situation can change by another agent than the individual who is conducting character action.

In a traditional RPG this is even more pronounced. The GM defines the Situation. The Player is acting. The conflict can arise without the (IMO fairly dramatic--in the sense of Ron writing about it with a great deal of drama) scenario envisioned.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I sense the potential for a tennis match. Speaker A says something. Speaker B says something else. Speaker A says something else. Repeat. Repeat. I've seen a few threads get into this mode recently, and this isn't going to be one of them. Why? Because the previous two posts aren't bringing up new points, but repeating old ones and muddying who's claiming what.

Marco, your paragraph about how RPGs are unlike other media was dealt with by me already in my paragraph beginning "Here's the part that might trip people up." Which is to say, yes, role-playing is more like playing in a band and less like writing a novel or movie script, when talking about this variable.

John, I've said this before: whether the writer feels like the character is autonomous from him is an over-rated issue. That sensation may or may not accompany the actual phenomenon, which never changes, that the real person writes the fictional character. I consider the topic profoundly uninteresting.

You wrote,

I don't think that Marco is saying that he can't deal with the choice -- only that it is a choice, and that role-players (like all other creators) can go either way.

'Scuse me. That is what I said. You're creating a fog in this discussion, not clarifying it, by placing me in opposition to this concept.

Furthermore, I provided several strong examples of how one can play "in character" and yet not address a Premise, as you requested. I'd like some acknowledgment of that.

Thus far, I see no challenge to my basic point: playing "in character" can accompany or underlie a vast array of goals/modes of role-playing, and is not confined either to Narrativist or non-Narrativist play.

Further discussion should challenge that point. Otherwise, this thread should end.

Best,
Ron