Narrativism is Exploration of Character

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Narrativism is exploration of character.

Whoa, Nelly! Let me explain.

In old episode of the Simpsons:

Lisa is depressed than usual about her looks. After failing to cheer her up, Homer goes to Moe's. A commercial for the Little Miss Springfield Pageant comes on the TV. He sells his Duff Beer blimp ride ticket for the pageant entrance fee.

The characterization of Homer Simpson is a dimwitted buffoon. By selling the blimp ticket, he proves that beneath that, he is a caring parent who will sacrifice anything for his daughter's happiness.

Check this out:

"Jessie just got out of prison, but while he was in the slammer he boned up on finance and investment, so he's an expert on stocks, bonds and securities, He can also breakdance. He's got a black belt in karate and plays a mean jazz saxophone."

Sound like a RPG character, doesn't it? But I got it out of a book. It's what a producer once told an actor was a muti-dimensional character. However, this character is flat as a pancake. This is all just characterization. Characterization are any observable traits of the character: manner of speech, style of dress, age, race, education, carreer, etc. But Characterization is like a mask that we all show the world. Deep character or true character is what's behind the mask. True character is only observable by having the character make decisions while under pressure.

Since Aristotle's Poetics, there has been a debate in storytelling over which is more important, plot or character? Aristotle believed that plot was more important. Many since then, believed that character is more important than plot. But the debate is false. Character, deep, true character is plot.Much of the debate is due to confusing character with characterization.  True character is only visible when the character makes decisions under pressure. This is what's shown in the Simpsons example, and probably why the producer was trying like a madman to make deep character from characterization. He did not realize it was invisible until the character is under pressure. When the character makes decisions under pressure, it makes the story happen. Because Homer decided to sell his blimp ticket, the plot of the show went this-a-way. If he had decided not to, not only would it have revealed a very different deep character but the plot would have gone that-a-way. Deep, true character is plot. Plot is character.

Therefore, Narrativism is exploration of character. Deep, true character. Not to be confused with the Simulationist exploration of characterization. Premise is important, but premise is more like the frying pan. The meat is the character. You can cook anything in a frying pan, but depending on the meat you're cooking, it's going to turn out differently You cannot address the premise without bringing out the deep character. Premise is, in Egri's words, the distilled meaning of the story. This meaning helps guide the storytelling, but it is not the storytelling. You make a story by exploring the deep character.


"My current kick is: a PC's decisions matter much more than her capabilities."
Otherkind by Vincent Baker

[james_west]

True character is only observable by having the character make decisions while under pressure. ... Therefore, Narrativism is exploration of character.

Two thoughts on this:

(1) It's more or less right.

(2) It might be confusing, if it were the first thing you came across when discovering the concepts. As a rephrasing, it definitely needs some caveats about who's making the decisions, and when they're made. If Homer had a stat 'Selflessness' that he had to roll on when he encountereted the situation, then things would become less clear cut.

- James

[Sean]

Jack -

I don't agree.

Narrativist play can involve exploration of character, and will probably involve it as a central feature of play in character-centered narrativism, but it doesn't have to.

Exploration of character can serve the creative agenda of both Gamist and Simulationist play.

So - exploration of character is neither necessary nor sufficient for Narrativism. So the 'is' of your title seems tendentious at best.

Two further thoughts on this:

1) Setting-centered narrativism, like that of the Dying Earth RPG, seems an important counterexample to your claims. Characters in this game are more or less interchangeable, and the narratives produced revolve around the setting instead. Is narrativist, many kinds of exploration of character are out of place given the kind of narrative the game ought best to produce.

2) What is the nature of a player's interest in the exploration of the character? Is the character an object of speculation or a story-creating agent? Sometimes the answer appears to be 'both', which is where your thesis is strongest and where I think many Narrativist-leaning players actually find themselves happiest. But I know a few players (myself early in high school among them) who only care about the 'object of speculation' part, and others who don't care at all about their characters except as tools for making cool stories. The latter I'd still characterize as Nar, but the former seem pretty solidly Sim to me - it's the Dream they're interested in above all.

Best,

Sean

[Jack Spencer Jr]

(2) It might be confusing, if it were the first thing you came across when discovering the concepts. As a rephrasing, it definitely needs some caveats about who's making the decisions, and when they're made. If Homer had a stat 'Selflessness' that he had to roll on when he encountereted the situation, then things would become less clear cut.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, James. I'm not sure what's confusing here. I don't quite get the "Selflessness stat" example. the Story now essay:"Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances" I suppose a "selflessness stat" could work for some who have no intention of making the decisions themselves. But I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you clairify?


Sean:

Narrativism is exploration of character. Deep, true character. Not to be confused with the Simulationist exploration of characterization.

Is the character an object of speculation or a story-creating agent? Sometimes the answer appears to be 'both', ...

What I did in my original post is take an ax and split what we've been calling character into these two things. Characterization being all the observable traits of a character, being what is mostly explored in Simulationism, and deep or true or just plain character which is what lies behind the characterization. I make this split because it seems to be reliably repeatable when examining character and a useful distinction.

[Sean]

Jack -

I don't think that answers my objection. I can be interested in having my character confronted with difficult choices and deeply morally charged circumstances in order to serve the sole purpose of finding out more about that character. Focus on exploration. If I don't care about the moral challenge except as it reveals more about my character, and if I don't give a rat's ass whether an even remotely interesting story is produced out of such a challenge, then it's not Narrativist-leaning play.

Best,

Sean

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Oops. My edit cross-posted. Sorry.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I can be interested in having my character confronted with difficult choices and deeply morally charged circumstances in order to serve the sole purpose of finding out more about that character. Focus on exploration. If I don't care about the moral challenge except as it reveals more about my character, and if I don't give a rat's ass whether an even remotely interesting story is produced out of such a challenge, then it's not Narrativist-leaning play.

Hmm., let me try a different tactic, because what you've described here still sounds like it to me. I hestitate to call it Narrativism just yet, but it is still exploration of deep character. In dealing with moral choices, you will still address a premise--which need not be specifically defined to be Narrativism. So that's not a contridiction. The bit about not wanting to produce a interesting story out of this is a bit trickier. That is how you produce an interesting story. Prioritizing exploration of the deep character will do this. Past that, I don't know what to tell you.

However, I haven't played Dying Earth. Do you know of a good actual play thread or perhaps can summarize what goes on so I may understand what you mean?

[Bankuei]

Hi Jack,

Character, deep, true character is plot.Much of the debate is due to confusing character with characterization. True character is only visible when the character makes decisions under pressure.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Conflict serves as a means of exposing deep character.  That is why Kickers, SAs and Scene Request rules in rpgs are very empowering.  While a lot of people got all up in a bunch about Narration rights as techniques for facilitating that level of player input, a lot of people forgot about the power of introducing conflict as the other half of it.  

And in terms of Deep Character exploration=Nar, basically, by exposing deep character, you ARE making thematic statments.  That's what meaningful decision is about.  A meaningful decision is made by the player, through the character, so in a sense, you are making a statement regarding the premise, regarding the character, and regarding yourself through Author Stance.

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Jack,

As far as I'm concerned, you're right on the money.

This is a thought I had recently: Nar play is about the *internal* struggle of a character.  Which choices the PC makes during play is what produces story.

Sim and Gamist play revolve around struggles, and often produce "story", but the struggles are *external*.  The internal life isn't really touched on.  

Sean,

I think your statements only reflect back what Jack and I would call Nar play.  Now, you may not want to call it Nar play -- and who the hell am I to tell you what to call what you play.  But if explroring the premise, whether through a character or through a toaster, for whatever reason (to explicitely explore the premise or simply because your grooving on  PC who is exploring Premise) and you're making such exploration a priority -- it's Nar play.  Remember, the players don't have to have the Premise of the game taped to their foreheads for all the other players to see and be reminded of during the course of the game.  It's the addressing of, and prioritizing of Premise that makes it Nar.  Jack's point is, and I've extended it, is if we're prioritizing the internal battle of a character, we've got Nar play, because then we've got internal choices going on, and that means we're addressing a premise.

As to your point that if you're not worried about making a story (rat's ass or not), it's not Nar play... That's just off the map.  That's not a definition of Nar play.  Addressing a Premise as a priority is.  

I think Jack's nailed it clean and simple.

Christopoher

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi, Chris.

Like the narrativism essay, I think the issue of stance is neither here nor there as far as this goes.


Hey, Christopher K. (just to keep it clear who I'm addressing here)

Thanks. Most of what I've said here comes almost directly from Story by Robert McKee. An excellent rescource for anyone, and the book the Jessie example came from.

[John Kim]

1) Setting-centered narrativism, like that of the Dying Earth RPG, seems an important counterexample to your claims. Characters in this game are more or less interchangeable, and the narratives produced revolve around the setting instead. Is narrativist, many kinds of exploration of character are out of place given the kind of narrative the game ought best to produce.

OK, I'm only vaguely familiar with the Dying Earth RPG.  What makes it Narrativist?  According to Ron's Narrativism essay, "making stories" is unrelated to Narrativism -- it can be a part of any GNS mode.  So if it is about making stories about the setting without involving probing moral choice by the characters, then it should be considered Simulationist.   On the other hand, there does seem to be some debate over this point -- so maybe you disagree with the idea that making story is independent of GNS?

[Sean]

The Dying Earth RPG nails Premise to Setting rather than Character, or at least that's what I tend to see, inspired somewhat by some unfinished conversations with Ron (as well as some asides in his essays).

John, if you had said "without involving moral choice by the players" (instead of characters), I would agree with you - but a game does not have to be heavy into exploration of character, or even involve moral choice by the characters, to accomplish this. What it has to do is have a group of people collaborating to play in a way that addresses moral questions (premise, 'story', whatever - I don't think those questions matter here).  You can do this with little or no exploration of character involved, and I think that the Dying Earth RPG could be enlisted to produce just this kind of play, though my experiences with the game have been more of the 'exuberant adolescent' variety. Whether it's 'story' or 'premise' or 'morally charged theme' or whatever that you're addressing through play, this does not require identification with your character, nor even any especially deep exploration of characters beyond what they contribute to the addressing of premise. I think characters can be mostly props in Narrativist play. (And in the other two broad creative agenda.)

Christopher - I believe that I've focused on heavy exploration of character in games with different GNS priorities. But I don't see what's incoherent about a player wanting to explore character just to find out more about that character, who's not interested in addressing premise (again - I really think the 'story' vs. 'premise' thing is a red herring in this discussion). He (or she) likes a narrativist-leaning GM because the GM puts his character in 'tough situations' that make him 'really think about what his character's like', but doesn't care at all about how his decisions address premise, or make story, or whatever - he's just interested in getting to know his character as well as possible, to discover as many things about his character as possible. So here the GM's Narrativist agenda (challenge player with situations premise-rich or pregnant with narrativist possibilities, or whatever) is serving the player's Simulationist agenda (discover as much about my character as possible), but it doesn't follow that they're trying to get the same thing out of the game. One sort of frustration that can come out of this kind of mismatch is that the Sim-leaning player makes decisions that are disappointing from the point of view of addressing premise or making story, because he's just not thinking about what would be cool or interesting - he's trying to do what he thinks the character would really do.

I am, of course, trying to analyze some of my own past experience in the above paragraph. On the other hand, I think I've gotten it pretty right, and in any case I don't see what's wrong with the conceptual possibility I describe even if I'm wrong about my own play.

I'm also pretty sure that I've played in games where everyone had a pretty explicit Narrativist agenda, so I'm not worried about me 'not really being Nar' or anything dumb like that. This is a theory thread, so I'm just holding out for what I think the theoretical possibilities are. I think that what Jack describes is probably symptomatic of the most common and maybe even the most enjoyable form of Narrativist play. I just think that you can have a hard-core focus on Exploration of Character which is stimulated by but not motivated by addressing of Premise (which is Nar at the service of Sim, hence Sim), and that you can have hard-core conscious addressing of premise in which characters are only a relatively unimportant part of the imaginative space in which this is taking place.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hey, Sean

If I'm not mistaken, the bone of contention here seems to be at what point does it become Nar and at what point does it become Sim, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "identification with your character" but as far as "especially deep exploration of characters" what does "especially deep" mean? I don't think it needs to be very deep. Just something past the mask of characterization. The Homer Simpson example isn't especially deep, only took a few minutes of screen time, and was little more than the payoff for a subplot. (And has been largely ignored in future episodes as new writers come in keep the buffoon characterization and don't show anything past that)

One sort of frustration that can come out of this kind of mismatch is that the Sim-leaning player makes decisions that are disappointing from the point of view of addressing premise or making story, because he's just not thinking about what would be cool or interesting - he's trying to do what he thinks the character would really do.

Funny, because even in Nar it should be "what the character would really do" I mean if it don't play like that, if the motivation is like Hitchcock's "Because I tell you to" then it plays false. So this is not a distinction at all, because both need that.

[Sean]

Hmm. Interesting. I don't even agree with that, Jack.

If 'what the character would really do' is a tool at the service of narrative plausibility, a springboard for ideas for how to address Premise, then yeah, that's Nar.

But if 'what the character would really do' is a fundamental constraint on action - if the question you're asking is 'what would this character do?', period, without any concern for how the character's action addresses premise, or for the way that that decision is going to make for a more interesting story - then I'd say it's Sim.

The question I ask here is one about the goals of play. 'Addressing premise' or 'making story' or whatever has to be a goal of play (conscious or otherwise) for it to be Nar play. I think. If that's right, then you don't necessarily hammer down too hard on the 'what would this character really do?' question. Rather, to me at least, it's 'what can this character do to create story (address premise, etc.), right here and right now, in this game?'

Probably there are cases where it's vague which of these two is going on (the borderline you refer to), which is why you have to look at broader segments of play sometimes to figure out what people's preferences are.

[Jason Lee]

Jack Spencer Jr, repeating what creative writing books all over the world are saying!  (Jack, please note, I'm being facetious.  I think your observation is dead on.)

*****

If 'what the character would really do' is a tool at the service of narrative plausibility, a springboard for ideas for how to address Premise, then yeah, that's Nar.

But if 'what the character would really do' is a fundamental constraint on action - if the question you're asking is 'what would this character do?', period, without any concern for how the character's action addresses premise, or for the way that that decision is going to make for a more interesting story - then I'd say it's Sim.

You have to take 'what the character would really do' a step deeper to unearth the CA at work.  You have to ask, 'why does the player think this is what the character would really do?'  Then you'll get the CA, and you might find all sorts of answers related to the character's beliefs at this level, and hence probably find yourself a Nar agenda.

*****

I'd like to touch on Premise from Setting.  I've been trying to classify a certain behavior of mine.  My characters tend to be built as a general personality and concept, then I develop everything else about them from their culture and strata.  I've got characters that are six years old and I barely know anything about their background.  However, they still seem (I'm told) very realistic, and theme is definitely being addressed in the Explore:Char sense - it's just being drawn from a well developed cultural frame of reference instead of personal background.  This is Setting and Character at work, supporting a theme, and ultimately leading to deep character.

That's my take on Premise from Setting.  The Setting contributes to the Character, and the Character is the player's vehicle for creation of theme.