Narrativism is Exploration of Character

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Mike, you're over-re-phrasing me a little. I don't think the thread has "nothing interesting" in it. I do think that M.J. pretty much nailed down all the corners on the issue, and I also think that it's perfectly all right for people to work out their ideas through dialogue. No need to dismiss it, eh?

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Ah, but we aren't talking about addressing premise; we're talking about exploring character, and trying to explore that character deeply.

Actually, no. Not explore character more deeply, but explore deep character, a specific trait of a fictional entity.

I thought I had this clear with the Homer Simpson example, so I summarize the example from Story to illustrate the difference between characterization and true character.

Two cars driving down the road side-by-side. One car, a broken down, rusted out, old compact car is driven by a middle aged female illegal alien who, from the buckets and mops in her back seat, works as a domestic. The other, a large BMW is driven by a young, white, male. It isn't too much to reveal he's a doctor, one of the foremost neurosurgeons in the world. Two characters with very different characterization.

Up ahead a school bus crashes and starts to burn. Now we have a chance to see their deep or true character. Do they stop? They both have a reason not to stop. He could rationalize he has skill in his hands that could save lives. She is illegal and probably has a family that relies on her income. But let's say they both stop. Do they actually try to enter the burning bus? Let's say they do. Who do they save before jumping from the bus before it explodes? Does he save a black child or a white one? Does she save a little boy or a little girl?

This of course, is a hypothetical example and not play so it would be difficult to pull a premise from it. But this is to illustrate what I mean by deep or true character and that it is only visible when the character makes moral or ethical choices.

[John Kim]

Just because you're applying pressure and making choices to explore character more deeply does not mean you are addressing premise. You could create a conflicted situation merely to consider how this character would act. Suppose a slave boy who was your character's primary playmate growing up runs away; that could be fraught with premise, but it could be merely a way of digging into who this character is and how he thinks and why he does what he does.

What makes it narrativism is that the players care about the premise; what makes it simulationism is that the players care about the information.  

Doesn't this amount to saying that "just playing my character" isn't Narrativist?  This seems to be classifying by motivation -- while Ron has frequently said that GNS is behavioral.  i.e. It doesn't matter why one follows Narrativist patterns of play, just that one does so.  

Personally, I don't care about addressing moral premise for its own sake -- I care about it because it affords insight into how people think and why they do what they do.  Something can address a premise without giving insight into character, but that usually isn't interesting to me.  To take an example, I read "Richard Scarry's Please and Thank You Book" to my three-year old.  This clearly addresses moral issues, but offers no insight into character.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

To take an example, I read "Richard Scarry's Please and Thank You Book" to my three-year old.  This clearly addresses moral issues, but offers no insight into character.

Isn't there a difference between any old issue of human existance and a premise?

[Ian Charvill]

Exploration of Character is Narrativist play ... if you're committed to that mode of play. Which makes the argument, as far as I'm concerned, rather circular.

Ron

Point of clarification.  You're saying exploration of character us narrativist play.  Are you intending to imply there is no sim, exploration of character or merely that narrativist play will always involve exploration of character?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

You're misreading me rather drastically.

I am saying that Narrativist play requires Exploration of Character, and that sometimes it prioritizes it. However, you can substitute Gamist or Simulationist straight into that sentence and those will be correct too.

In other words, I am disagreeing with Jack, or rather, saying that he is presenting a logical circle: "If I want to play Narrativist via primarily Exploring Character, then I will be Exploring Character to play Narrativist."

My answer: Well, yeah. But that's not a feature of Narrativism, that's a feature of any Creative Agenda.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

Cool.  The way I was reading it seemed to be far too extreme given the theory in general.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

In other words, I am disagreeing with Jack, or rather, saying that he is presenting a logical circle: "If I want to play Narrativist via primarily Exploring Character, then I will be Exploring Character to play Narrativist."

I would see your point, were it not for the distinction of deep character I've been trying to get across.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jack,

I suggest we take this as a two-part process. There's this thread, in which you've isolated this "deep character" point that you want to make. The best thing to do is to sit back, construct exactly the phrasing about "deep character" that you want to use, and then construct whatever point or inquiry that you want to make about it. Then start a new thread about that. This one, I think is best left with the noble history of generating the issue.

Best,
Ron