Characterization vs Deep Character

[M. J. Young]

Let me jump in to agree that narrativism is not about black and white either/or decisions between two points, and that the Spiderman example is relevant to that.

In Star Trek, they introduced the Kobiashi Maroo (I think it was)--a test for cadets which had no solution, all of your options are closed, and you are going to die now, so what are you going to do? It's supposed to be a test of character. I'm not sure what other cadets generally did, but at one point Kirk was asked what he did, as the only person ever to have solved it. His answer, as you probably know, is that he reprogrammed the simulation to create a way out--because he doesn't believe in a no-option situation.

That tells us a lot about the character; it is an answer to the question, very like Spiderman's answer to the Goblin. The Goblin says, is the life of one person you love worth more or less than the lives of many innocents you don't even know? Which will you choose? Spiderman's answer is, I don't believe I have to make that choice; I can save the one I love and the innocents, or I can at least attempt to do so. He has in fact made a moral statement which could be interpreted as narrativist--would be narrativist, if that's why he made it (although as previously stated, could well be gamist if the player's thinking was, "watch me beat this scenario").

Narrativism is about making statements about the premise because the premise interests us. Spiderman made a statement about the premise. If he did it for that reason, it's narrativism. He doesn't have to choose between the two things offered; he has to make a statement about the question.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'm beginning to think this thread has played out its topic. Does anyone really, really need to say something more? Going once, going twice ...

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

May be, Ron. It seems that I still have not articulated the concept sufficiently for more than a handful of people to get what I'm talking about. Perhaps We'll try again if I figure out a better/different way to express it.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
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.

*snip*

Actually, not really. You've taken spidermans dilemma, and used it like a wrench to bang in a nail.

Lets say its not spiderman, lets say its some character we don't know so well, and then look in his mind at this point. Now, he gets to the dilemma, and perhaps we think he'll start evaluating what he loves. No, in fact he starts to strategise some overall win tactic. It's clear he just wants to win, that's whats important to him, what he loves...no other love comes before it, apparently.

So this character treats it all like a game. He's like people in real life who treat life like a game, playing chicken or whatever.

As a player, your meta game agenda might be to beat the refs little plan, but doesn't stop your choices reflecting a character. When you rescue mary jane, maybe she wont cheer. She'll turn on you, because of the way you treated it like just like a carnival side show, to be glibby played to win. His tactics clearly showed it. 'Was that all thats important to you?', she asks.

Its shown that no love comes before that love of winning. You might want to step away yourself and play some other game then come back latter and say 'no, really he did it because he loved this and this'. But really you don't get to step away and do something else, everything you do reflects character. This is less 'doing some gamism and displaying character that isn't influenced by that gaming', and more showing a character that loves to win, but when its over pretends to mary jane that no, winning wasn't important, it was her as well as X, Y and Z. A bit of a liar that character, perhaps?

Then again, he might be able to hide his love of winning in his tactics, making it look like other loves came first (I love freedom, and other cliches). But with the synergy between PC and player mind set, is it really so?

EDIT: I didn't notice the auction was basically over, but I think I atleast added something that I hadn't read in previous pages. Sorry, regardless.

SECOND EDIT: Ah, I hope no one read what I wrote for my previous second edit...I was mistaken. I shouldn't read join dates as post dates.