Characterization vs Deep Character

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Character: a fictional person or entity.

However, this fictional entity is made of two distinctive element that is 1) reliably repeatable and 2) a fundamentally useful distinction.

Characterization

"Characterization is the sum of all observable qualities of a human being, everything knowable through careful scrutiny: age and IQ; sex and sexuality; style of speech and gesture; choices of home, car, and dress; education and occupation; personality and nervosity; values and attitudes"

We're pretty familiar with characterization. Most, if not all of the information on a character sheet is characterization: stats, skills, classes, races, equipment (in some cases), advantages, disadvantages, mental traits, quirks, and a decent chunk of any background if not the whole thing.

Characterization is a very important part of Character. It's what makes a person unique. It can also be complex. James Bond has a complex characterization. He is suave, debonair, well-spoken, attractive. However, the "00" in his number indicates he has a license to kill. He may be doing it for Queen and country, but he is still an assassin, a cold-blooded killer. This contradicts his smooth manner, making Bond a character with dimension.

Deep Character

Deep Character "...  is revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure"

"Pressure is essential. Choices made when nothing is at risk mean little. If a character chooses to tell the truth in a situation where a lie will gain him nothing, the choice is trivial, the moment expresses nothing. But if the same character insist on telling the truth when a lie would save his life, then we sense honesty is at the core of his nature"

Deep character strikes at the moral core of the character. Is he courageous or a coward? Is she honest or a liar? By making meaningful decisions, the deep character shows through.

Also, these decisions the character makes also drives the story. Deep character helps make the story happen. As the character makes these decisions, what they decide steers the flow of events.

Furthermore, as the character continues to make these decisions, revealing deep character and steering the flow of events, a deeper meaning is built, a universal human truth that applies to how we live our lives. This is sometimes called a premise.

Narrativism is prioritized exploration of deep character.

Portions in "quotes" taken from Story  Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee © 1997

[Paganini]

Jack,

In a word, yes! Although I would disagree with your statement that Bond is a multi-dimensional character. A character that is described *only* by Characterization is flat - almost by definition, given your terms. In order for a character to not be flat, Deep Character must be observed.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Although I would disagree with your statement that Bond is a multi-dimensional character. A character that is described *only* by Characterization is flat - almost by definition, given your terms.

Actually, not to be cryptic, but I really didn't go into dimensions of character and don't want to get into it just yet. Not in this thread, anyway.

[M. J. Young]

No, I still disagree.

I think you can develop characters with "deep character", and crush them against these kinds of issues and conflicts, and still do simulationist exploration of character. You can even do gamist exploration of character in such situations, although it's a bit tougher--but think of Spiderman, when he had to choose between the carload of kids and the girl of his dreams. Jack wants that choice to be a proof of moral character, and it is; but in Spiderman's case, he didn't think, "which of these should I save". He revealed his moral character by stepping up to the plate and saying, "how can I save both of them?"

--M. J. Young

[Paganini]

M.J., I'm not seeing a problem here. How is the Spiderman example not still Deep Characterization?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

I'm with Nathan on this one. The issue has very little, probably nothing whatever, to do with whether the character "thinks about" his or her decision. What matters is what he or she does.

In fact, Spider-Man is probably the poster child of comics characters whose 1960s storylines emphasized the kind of pressure that Jack is talking about.

And Jack, here's my call: "deep" terminology or not, what you're describing in my terminology is already accounted for - Character-based Premise, as described in both of the relevant essays.

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

M.J., I'm not seeing a problem here. How is the Spiderman example not still Deep Characterization?

he's saying it *is* Deep Characterization, but it's Gamist, not Narrativist. because the player's decision is how to get the best outcome (save both) rather than play out a moral choice.

[Silmenume]

I do so hate to come across as a complete idiot, but is the vasic argument running through this thread that Deep Character cannot be explored in Sim?

I believe, like the falacy that shown with the internal causality being the sole province of Sim that the notion that Deep Character as the sole province of Nar will also be shown as a falacy.

There is absolutely nothing in Sim that prevents Deep Character from being explored.  I do, however, agree with the basic idea that Narrativism prioritizes Deep Character Exploration.  The advantage of Nar is that Deep Character Exploration is built right into the system.  But that only makes Nar a convenient to do so, not the only place to do so.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Caldis]

No, I still disagree.

I think you can develop characters with "deep character", and crush them against these kinds of issues and conflicts, and still do simulationist exploration of character. You can even do gamist exploration of character in such situations, although it's a bit tougher--but think of Spiderman, when he had to choose between the carload of kids and the girl of his dreams. Jack wants that choice to be a proof of moral character, and it is; but in Spiderman's case, he didn't think, "which of these should I save". He revealed his moral character by stepping up to the plate and saying, "how can I save both of them?"

--M. J. Young

But if he can save them both it's not a choice.  The choice comes in when he realizes that there is no possible way to save both, then he must make a choice which happened in the comic book version of the story and Gwen Stacy died (IIRC).

I do so hate to come across as a complete idiot, but is the vasic argument running through this thread that Deep Character cannot be explored in Sim?

I dont think so but I do see where it does conflict, or rather spill over into narrativist territory.

Furthermore, as the character continues to make these decisions, revealing deep character and steering the flow of events, a deeper meaning is built, a universal human truth that applies to how we live our lives. This is sometimes called a premise.

So if you explore these deep questions about human nature you are creating a premise, and if you are free to make any choice about that premise you are addressing it and the game has turned narrativist.  By giving the player the power to decide what happens his own beliefs and spin on the situation comes into the picture making in inherently his own comment.

The simulationist approach to such a situation where it came down to choice would be to have a mechanism in play to determine what the character does, something that keeps the players beliefs and interpretation of the events out of the way as much as possible.  The player should have no more choice in the outcome than they do when entering combat.  So in the Spiderman example he would be rated on different values, Love girlfriend 5, protect innocent 6, and then the dice would be consulted to see what he does.

Deep exploration possible in sim? Sure but if you dont have the mechanics to seperate the players values from the decision then it really becomes narrativism.  The players choice is inherently going to be coloured by their own take on the situation

[Paganini]

M.J., I'm not seeing a problem here. How is the Spiderman example not still Deep Characterization?

he's saying it *is* Deep Characterization, but it's Gamist, not Narrativist. because the player's decision is how to get the best outcome (save both) rather than play out a moral choice.

Oh! M.J., is that right? If so...

Well, so what? I still don't see a problem. What Jack is calling Deep Character is basically what Ron calls Premise / Theme. As Ron constantly insists, Premise / Theme can be present in *any* mode of play. Theme can exist without Narrativism. But Narrativism cannot exist without theme.

[Paganini]

Caldis, close, but not quite.

Furthermore, as the character continues to make these decisions, revealing deep character and steering the flow of events, a deeper meaning is built, a universal human truth that applies to how we live our lives. This is sometimes called a premise.

So if you explore these deep questions about human nature you are creating a premise, and if you are free to make any choice about that premise you are addressing it and the game has turned narrativist.  By giving the player the power to decide what happens his own beliefs and spin on the situation comes into the picture making in inherently his own comment.

Not exactly. What you say is true, in that these are requirements for Narrativism. But more than that, it's not Narrativism unless the players themselves are choosing to address the Premise because it is somehow important or interesting to them as people. This is the Story Now part of the picture. Without Story Now you've just got thematic Sim (or Gam).

The simulationist approach to such a situation where it came down to choice would be to have a mechanism in play to determine what the character does, something that keeps the players beliefs and interpretation of the events out of the way as much as possible.  The player should have no more choice in the outcome than they do when entering combat.  So in the Spiderman example he would be rated on different values, Love girlfriend 5, protect innocent 6, and then the dice would be consulted to see what he does.

This is way off. Creative Agendas are about real people, not Technique. The players might very well be able to make the choice in a Sim game. In fact, lots of people play freeform Sim in just this way. They make decisions based on *what is plausible* given the Exploratory context. "What would my guy do? How would the environment behave? What would happen here?" The Premise / Theme may still be interesting to the players, but they don't have the same emotional investment in how it turns out. It's interesting for it's own sake, and should turn out the way it *would* turn out.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Those are all excellent points, Nathan.

Pendragon offers a good example of facilitating rather strong thematic characters while maintaining, in my view, a commitment to Simulationist play.

What makes it especially relevant to this thread is that, in Pendragon, you have the choice when faced with a difficult of decision of (a) simply rolling vs. the character's personality trait to see what he or she does, and (b) choosing what he or she does, but checking the trait that you're invoking, which contributes to changing your trait scores.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

The character vs characterization was one of the things that struck me most from Story.  It's one of the few bits I remember with any clarity (my memory is that I liked it a great deal, but was rather disappointed by McKee's actual screenwriting credits).

My memory of McKee's text vis Deep Character is that it focusses on precisely those moments that would underscore narrativist Premise.  They are the crunch moments when a character's ethics would be tested.  McKee also - and I'm aware how shaky my reminiscence might be here - also asserted that essentially Deep Character is defined by when a character would betray themselves.  You're a honest cop who'd never take a bribe - Deep Character is really revealed by the moment when you'd bend the rules.

Ron, this ties in with stuff you've said in the past about in narrativist play the expectation is that the Paladin would break his code - and the interest of the group is in the moment when.

Perhaps Jack can back up my rather vague memories with some actual textual citations from McKee?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi, Ian.

My memory of McKee's text vis Deep Character is that it focusses on precisely those moments that would underscore narrativist Premise. They are the crunch moments when a character's ethics would be tested.

Correct. At least, as per my understanding.

McKee...also asserted that essentially Deep Character is defined by when a character would betray themselves. You're a honest cop who'd never take a bribe - Deep Character is really revealed by the moment when you'd bend the rules.

Sort of. The reasoning goes something like this.

People don't always know themselves. Sometimes we think we do until we are tested. An example McKee gives is Rick in Casablanca Near the begining he says "I stick my neck out for no man." and the audience thinks "Not yet, Rick, not yet. Just you wait."

So, looking at your honest cop deal. He is an honest cop, or thinks he is and most of the time probably acts on this belief. But put him in a situation that test this.

Say he's young and married to a law student. Money's tight but they get by. But she accidentally gets pregnant. Now they're having trouble getting by.

The cop and his partner get a domestic disbute call. The wife accuses the husband of molesting their infant child. The cop goes to check out the kid with the husband while his partner stays with the wife. Under the baby blankey he finds a huge brick of cocaine on the infant's chest. Our cop starts by saying that you should leave that there because the child might chew on the edges. Ah, you're right, officer. We should be more careful says the husband taking out a large wad of cash and starts peeling off several hundred dollar bills.*

Now we'll see if our cop is as honest as everybody thinks he is. Sure money would be tempting to anyone, but he has a real need for the money to get his little family on more solid financial footing.

I would say "betray yourself" is a little strong. It's more like testing what you think you know about yourself. It probably also ties in to character dimension which McKee defines as "contradiction: either within deep character ([Macbeth] guilt-ridden ambition) or between characterization and deep character (a charming thief)." But I'm not sure.

side issue made small because it is unimportant:
"my memory is that I liked it a great deal, but was rather disappointed by McKee's actual screenwriting credits"

True. I am not aware of any credits to his name, but he does have a list of works written, directed or produced by his students on the back of the book. Truth be told, I don't like all the movies/tv shows listed.

*This example is listed from Rising Sun by Michael Crichton. This situation is trimmed down to non-existant in the film version.

[Jason Lee]

Not exactly. What you say is true, in that these are requirements for Narrativism. But more than that, it's not Narrativism unless the players themselves are choosing to address the Premise because it is somehow important or interesting to them as people. This is the Story Now part of the picture. Without Story Now you've just got thematic Sim (or Gam).

I'm going to have to agree with Caldis here.  It seems to me that trying to distinguish Sim|Char and Nar|Char often wanders into statements that imply Nar is more intentional, such as the above.  I think often people are trying to draw a distinction between Nar|Char with a lot of Author stance and Nar|Char with a lot of Actor Stance, then calling the Actor stance Sim, but I digress.

With GNS we infer motivation (at least I do), but we only measure behavior.  If they are addressing the Premise, then it's Nar, regardless of choice, interest or intent.  We can then infer (at least I will) interest, because someone keeps doing it.

I had this realization while driving to class today about why an instance of play is looked at for determining agenda.  Your statistical deviation is smaller the greater your sampling size.  Now, this doesn't change my previous opinion at all - an instance of play is needed for recognizing patterns.  It's just that adding a mathematical purpose to something gives it more meaning for me.  Maybe I'm alone, but I thought I'd share.

Anyway, the point is that a single behavioral observation that indicates Premise addressment doesn't tell us much.  However, if a player consistently addresses Premise across a lengthy play instance, then our statistical deviation shrinks - the chance that that player is playing Nar increases and hence our inference of motivation becomes more accurate.

Sorry, I've wandered a lot to make my point.  Jack's distinction is important for identifying what is Nar|Char and what is not.  This distinction is quite possibly the biggest thorn in Sim's side.  The distinction may imply something lacking in Sim, but at least it implies it exists.

Deep character is Premise loaded Character, pushed into moral conflict.  If the player continually drives toward this then that's Nar.  Plain and simple the way I see it.