Characterization vs Deep Character

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

True enough. It's nothing new but a slightly different angle. However, while going back through the essay today, read this:

[*]A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?

[*]Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on? [/list:u]

This seems to be one of our disconnects on the topic. What you see in deep character is the first bullet point. However, I see deep character is being explored with the second bullet point as well. The origin of the premise may be the setting, but it's brought swiftly back to deep character with "which side are you on?"

[Silmenume]

Premise is a question that has an A or B response, yes or no.  The implications of the answer can be found in the question itself.  Such a question cannot be effectively posed until placed in a situation.  Here's the deal.  Once placed in a situation, how the premise got there looks no different from any GNS perspective, it is just a difficult situation.  How the player responds is important as his behavior implies motivation (CA).  If the player sticks to the A/B parameters of the implied question in the situation then he is purposefully addressing the implied question – he has an interest in it.  He is addressing the premise question that was built into the situation/conflict.

A Simulationist would not be interested in the A/B response only but seeks to the deal with the conflict in the situation in a way that best reflects his character.  In other words the Sim player is not interested in the question, and thus ignores it by not answering yes or no but instead focuses on resolving the situation in a manner that best reflects the Deep Character of his character.

Both responses reflect a Deep Character revealing choice that became possible because of a difficult situation that required a decision.  The same could be said of Gamist play.

The point is that Creative Agenda only says what we want to get out of play, not what must or can happen in play.  Deep Character Exploration is not CA specific.  However Deep Character Exploration is prioritized in Nar.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

edited - some serious grammatical problems - sheeeesh!

[Caldis]

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).

Yet how can this be when the premise is not necessarily known?  How does someone choose to focus on something that doesnt necessarily exist at this point, nor is it formally verbalized at any point.   How does a sim player decide whether a slave owning character for example, has experienced enough to change his values and set his slaves free without bringing in the players own understanding of human nature and the issues at hand?  If he makes the decision he can not possibly decide that this is what the character would do with out expressing his own bias and thereby showing how he's chosen to address the premise.

For at least that single instant where the player makes the decision he's addressing the premise and therefore playing narrativist.  This doesnt mean he cant play the rest of the session simulationist, and certainly if that instant of decision wasnt gripping or exciting to him then it wont be his priority and he wont persue a more narrativist play style.

I believe Ron's model already allows for different modes of play to show up throughout any gaming session.  When it comes down to these moral questions that's exactly what happens, narrativism takes over as long as the player has choice just as it's hard not to root for your character in a gamist fashion when combat takes place.

[M. J. Young]

Yes, I'm saying that exploration of character, even deep character, can happen in gamist-prioritized play.

Jack threw up the example of the man forced to choose between saving his wife and saving his daughter; he said that pressures like this reveal "deep character". Granted. He further said that they are always narrativism in action, that in fact they are definitive of narrativism.

I say that they are not; that what he is calling "deep character" may be part of simulationist or even gamist play.

I don't think the spiderman example is substantially unlike his example; now we're going to turn it into game play. The movie doesn't exist; none of us have seen it. Rather, I am playing Spiderman. The Green Goblin throws this problem at me: am I going to save Mary Jane, or the kids?

Now, it looks like I have a moral question with only two answers; that's what the Green Goblin wants me to think. That's probably what the referee wants me to think. I'm supposed to be asking myself, which one will I save? (Like the audience in the movie, that was the question going through most minds, I'd wager.)

I recognize, however, that these are not the only choices. I could

[*]Abandon the kids and save Mary Jane;[*]Sacrifice Mary Jane to save the kids;[*]Sacrifice both of them for the chance to get the Green Goblin;[*]Do nothing at all;[*]Risk losing everyone by trying to save them all.[/list:u]
That is not less a moral choice on my character's part, certainly. Indeed, whatever he chooses is going to reflect what Jack is calling "deep character". However, as a player, what now goes through my head is that I can do this--I can end run the referee's clever little plot and save everyone. It's risky, and I might fail, but I think that the odds are good enough that I can save them all. I'm going to step up to this challenge and prove that I'm good enough to do this.

I have indeed examined and revealed the deep character of my character Spiderman: he takes the risk that he might lose everyone in the hope that he might save everyone. At the same time, while I'm doing this exploration of character by revealing his deep character, I am playing gamist. I'm trying to beat the referee's clever little problem and prove that I can outplay the challenge.

If I succeed, everyone cheers, because I did it. This is thoroughly gamist play, despite the fact that deep character is part of what has just been explored.

By contrast, I could have decided that Mary Jane and the kids were reasonable losses if I could get the Green Goblin, and gone for him, let the innocents fall, and nailed the Goblin. That, too, would be gamist play, and it also would have been an exploration of character which revealed deep character--it would have made the statement that my version of Spiderman will sacrifice innocents, even those dear to him, to get the villain.

Jack wants to say that you can't explore deep character without prioritizing narrativism. I'm quite happy to admit that such exploration of deep character is most commonly narrativist; I'm not willing to say that it's never gamist nor simulationist.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Yet how can this be when the premise is not necessarily known?  How does someone choose to focus on something that doesnt necessarily exist at this point, nor is it formally verbalized at any point.  

I had been wondering this myself, actually. Ron has been saying all along that the premise need not be conciously stated. This has been confusing the piss out of me for years. How is it possible to focus on something that is not conciously stated? I was pretty much done with the whole GNS thing altogether until through rereading McKee it clicked. Deep character is only visible when the protagonist makes meaningful decision, decision when under pressure that reveal the moral core of the character. This pretty much describes addressing premise from the essay. So, to me at least, that's how you can prioritize something without conciously expressing it. By prioritizing exploration of where it actually happens, deep character.


MJ,

Jack threw up the example of the man forced to choose between saving his wife and saving his daughter; he said that pressures like this reveal "deep character". Granted. He further said that they are always narrativism in action, that in fact they are definitive of narrativism

Um... mind point out to me where I said that? Because I don't rememeber nor could I find it scanning both threads quickly. I hate it when people quote me and I don't recall saying it.

[Caldis]

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.

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.

Isnt Story Now essentially just a technique?  Yet it is linked exclusively to narrativism.   The same is true with mechanics for determining moral choice, if one is just interested in seeing what would happen if this character were in this situation then roll the dice and consult this chart, the hard core simulationist player is fine with that.  Where most peoples preference lies however is somewhere in between.  They want to have a say in the characters choice, to make a statement based on their understanding of the character and human nature about how the character will react in this situation.  

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.

This to me is the game designer offering a choice based on preference, do you want to see what would happen or do you prefer to decide based on your feelings about the decision in question, he's allowing for either creative agenda to be in place.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Caldis,

No, Story Now is not a Technique. It is a Creative Agenda, which is to say a social and creative priority. It is synonymous with Narrativism.

One of the Creative Agendas = Narrativism = Story Now.

Also, my claim about Pendragon is that both of the techniques available to the player are consistent with the immensely sophisticated Simulationist thrust of this game.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm quite happy to admit that such exploration of deep character is most commonly narrativist; I'm not willing to say that it's never gamist nor simulationist.

Quite right. Hence why I started putting "prioritized" in there. Instances of deep character exploration may be what helps make "story later."

"Prioritized" was always implied, but somewhere in the middle of the old thread I decided that I probably had best start typing it, as in narrativism is prioritized exploration of deep character.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

A Simulationist would not be interested in the A/B response only but seeks to the deal with the conflict in the situation in a way that best reflects his character.  In other words the Sim player is not interested in the question, and thus ignores it by not answering yes or no but instead focuses on resolving the situation in a manner that best reflects the Deep Character of his character.

Leaving aside that I don't agree with the A/B thing (look at MJ's Spider-Man example: save a cable car full of kids or save the woman he loves. A or B? Spider-Man said "both") But leaving that aside for a minute, from the Story Now essay:

3.  Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a complete red herring. People daily address Premise without self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing Narrativist. Laws' term "conscious" and my "mindful" only refer to the attention to and social reinforcement of the process - not to self-analytical or abstract discussion about the content.

Also, if exploration of deep character is prioritized in play, then the premise will be addressed. It is not possible to do one without the other because they are the same thing seen from different angles.


Side note:

There may be some confusion about morals and values being mistaken for deep character exploration. McKee's definition of Characterization again, with emphasis:

"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"

Some things that may look like the moral core of deep character is actually characterization. Ian actually nailed this above with the honest cop who takes a bribe. "Honest" being characterization but in the deep character, he takes the bribe

[Silmenume]

I actually think that sticking to the A/B response is a defining characteristic action of Narrativist play.

How the premise question is put into play shades the answer, and the question can be asked many different way thus creating greater subtly to the theme, but in a given moment of premise question crises, the player if he wishes to address premise as a goal, must choose from the yes or no (or A/B) choices given to him in the question.

Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?
Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others?
Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

At the instance the premise situation comes up for the player in a Narrativist game, the player must choose between the two choices available in that particular circumstance.  By choosing to ignore the two possible responses the player is in effect choosing to ignore the premise question.

Unless what I am inferring is wrong, all premise questions are asking the types of questions who's required answers are in contention with one another.  This does not necessarily mean the theme will be simple for the same question can be asked under a thousand different circumstances with each response adding the complexity or subtlety of the theme.

The Spiderman example used earlier is misleading because we don't know exactly what the premise question was.  Unless I am deeply mistaken the question as indicated wasn't even structured as a premise question, just a situation.

The Green Goblin throws this problem at me: am I going to save Mary Jane, or the kids?

I think a more premise like form of the above would be –

Is the life of one worth more than the life of many?

Now you introduce the Situation with the premise hovering over it and the player, if he is interested in addressing the premise, will restrict his actions to those that directly respond the question.  It is not a matter if the player can out think the premise, but what answer he will give.  Yes or no.  A or B.  Choosing "both", "neither," or anything other than yes or no denies the question itself.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The Green Goblin throws this problem at me: am I going to save Mary Jane, or the kids?

I think a more premise like form of the above would be –

Is the life of one worth more than the life of many?

The problem with the Spider-Man example is we're looking at a single event in the movie and by breaking this event down we're confusing the issue. Premise is seen over an instance of play which is at least a full session if not several sessions.

So, taking the movie as an instance of play, the premise question would probably be something like "With greater power comes greater responsibility. Now that you have power, what are your responsibilities and how do you fullfill them?"

The Green Goblin tries to force Spider-Man to make a choice. SPider-Man thinks "These people are all in danger because of me. It's my fault and I have to try to fix that." The funny thing is, this scene doesn't answer the premise question as strongly as the very end of the movie when Mary Jane finally loves Peter and he says they can't be together. He gives up finally having the woman he loves because he realizes that loving him would mean danger for her. He answers the premise question and reveals his deep character that he is a hero who is will to make great sacrifices to protect others, and not just physical sacrifices.

[Silmenume]

I'll buy your take on the whole Spiderman movie topic, but it was something of a sidetrack.  I discounted the example given because it was a situation, not a premise question.  Again I assert that all premise questions are yes/no (A/B) situations.  That is part of the nature of the premise question in a Narrativist game, a very difficult situation that must be answered in the two options implicitly allowed, though more solutions may be possible.

In Narrativism, as I understand it, the important thing is the question.  So important that the players will willingly forego better solutions, if they are available, to stick to the two implicit solutions so as to answer the question.  Even if this violates character integrity.  Obviously I think most Nar games would structure their elements so as to minimize such conflicts between the character integrity and premise solutions, but Nar does prioritize the question over character integrity if need be.  Something has to take precedence.  If character integrity takes precedence over the premise question then the player is no longer prioritizing Nar play, or at least for that moment.

How can one tell if the player is not addressing the premise quesiton?  By not sticking to the two possible implicit outcomes.

That's my thesis and I'm stickin' to it! ... unless proved otherwise.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Two implicit outcomes, Jay? Sounds a little arbitrarily limited to me. I list four in Sorcerer, and that's because I'm considering only one of many, many possible qualifying variables. If you consider the dual-Humanity concept I introduce in Sex & Sorcery, things multiply again.

I'm pretty serious about this. Nothing about "problematic human dilemma" implies black-and-white thinking.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

In Narrativism, as I understand it, the important thing is the question.  So important that the players will willingly forego better solutions, if they are available, to stick to the two implicit solutions so as to answer the question.  Even if this violates character integrity.  Obviously I think most Nar games would structure their elements so as to minimize such conflicts between the character integrity and premise solutions, but Nar does prioritize the question over character integrity if need be.  Something has to take precedence.  If character integrity takes precedence over the premise question then the player is no longer prioritizing Nar play, or at least for that moment.

I'm the mighty quibbler!

I'm gonna say that it's the statement that's important, like "love conquers all".  How many questions and answers are used to get there can vary wildly.  I would normally blow off such a minor distinction (as an distinction that doesn't really exist), but I think the A/B choice thing needs to die a horrible death.

As far as character integrity goes, there are a couple of fully Nar options I'd like to throw out.  One with overt control over the final shape of the theme, and one that's more stealth.  Both refusing to compromise character integrity.

1)  Preservation of character integrity by manipulation of circumstance.  You never have to choose Char over theme, if you put the character in situations that address theme.  This is real easy for an author, and harder for a roleplayer without something resembling Director stance.

2)  Character integrity driven by a theme.  This is pretty simple, actually.  The character has a certain set of values, beliefs or motivations that he makes decisions by.  If those morals are tested by conflict, if they shape the course of the story, then whamo Nar.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Thanks, Ron, Jason.

BTW Where the hell did "character integrity" come from? It's not part of the topic and I fail to see how it applies.