Gentlemen, and Gordon in particular,

This post deals with concerns in two current threads, "Soul reviewed" and "Relating Sorcerer's Soul and Sorcerer & Sword."

Consider issues of baseline kinship and sexuality. Now consider them in the context of a larger society, which itself brings ties of obligation and reputation. Imagine those first ties being, at times, in concert with those second ties, and, at other times, in conflict with those second ties.

Therefore we are not talking about an either-or situation, but an embedded one. I say again, wearily, that my claim that the first set of ties are the "default" ones that most consistently capture people's attention, in no way is a claim that the second set of ties are not there.

Dramatic stories lacking explicit kinship/sex ties are quite possible. To no one's surprise, they occur in settings and situations in which those ties are unavailable except as memories: men isolated in conditions of war, for example.

Complexity is added within each category as well, in terms of "my uncle or my son?" or "which potential romantic partner is for me?" or "do I betray the cops whom I work for or these guys I've become friends with?" In other words, each category has many internal options and conflicts, as well as potential conflicts and confluences with the other category.

As you can see, this is a tremendously high-potential model for the decisions a human being is faced with, with absolutely no "right answer" in terms of standards. Stories, to my way of thinking, are means of working out the complexity for oneself.

I should also point out that this is a simplified model; there are actually two categories in each stated one above (making four total). Furthermore, the social categories are especially prone to internal conflicts and "customizing" to specific circumstances.

Gareth, if this outlook presents a conflict with what you would like people to be like, or to do, there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not inclined to address any model or outlook that you extrapolate from it (as distinct from the original), nor to address any "feelings" you bring to the discussion.

Gordon, one of the problems with your analysis and conundrum, from the start, is that you are attempting to address the issue internally rather than thinking in terms of utility of play. The question is not, "Do I feel this claim is right?" but rather, "Does this technique consistently produce more enjoyable role-playing of a particular kind?" In other words, it's not about you, but about the people around you and their interests.

Mike, your comments about Freudian views are not relevant. My approach to these issues is distinctly non-Freudian, which I'll be happy to explain over private email.

Best,
Ron

(I'd send this as a private msg to Ron, but it seems a few others might be interested, so, here I go . . . )

OK, *something* is just not connecting for me in this communication about the R-Map stuff, and I can't quite figure out what that is, or why it is.

Ron, while I think most of the essence of your post here is clear to me, you lost me in the specifics along the way . . . I'm with you on the two sets of ties, and that they can be in concert or conflict. I understand that you are NOT saying the second set of ties is UNimportant - no either/or, NOT that the 2nd set isn't there. But I also understand you to be saying that the 1st set (kinship and sexuality) are almost always a better FOCUS - "the second set of ties are only important when taken in the context of the first", to offer a
paraphrase of . . . heck, let me dig up the quote from another thread (not as a cherry-pick to "disagree" with you on, but beacuse it seems like the very heart of the issue that's got me concerned):

Therefore, yes, intent, organizational affiliation, and ideology are important for role-playing. I do not suggest that they be ignored or pushed aside or otherwise left out. But they gain their importance insofar as they reinforce or violate the lines of a relationship-map.

As you can see, this is a tremendously high-potential model for the decisions a human being is faced with, with absolutely no "right answer" in terms of standards. Stories, to my way of thinking, are means of working out the complexity for oneself.

Gordon --

My copy of Sorcerer's Soul only shipped today (if everything is working correctly at www.Sorcerer.com), so I won't comment on Ron?s definition of terms until I at least read the darned thing.

I will, however, briefly comment on potential problems with players -- specifically, let's say, in the Spy Game you mention. (And Ron, if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth, I apolgize -- but again, I'm very excited about what I've ready so far, and it's all bouncing around my head.)

Let's say we open up an old issue of Dragon and read a story based on whatever the heck their spy game was called. Will we find ties of family and sex? At best, maybe, but only in ways that probably don?t impact on the thematic complexity of the story. (The protagonist leaves the red head lying in bed before going off to save the world. Whatever.) Why? Because this story is going to use set pieces of the genre to no better effect than to set the set pieces up. There will be no exploration of larger issues.

Now, say, we open up a John LeCarre novel. Are we going to find ties of family and sex? You betcha we are. Because LeCarre's books are about the larger issues. It, too, will be a spy story. But the spy is activity that engages what it means to be a human being in the world of spying. Smiley's wife is having an affair with some at the Circus. It's a secret. But it's not a secret. How does that impact him as a man who lives as a man of secrets? How does it impact him when he could choose to put this man into danger -- or not?

Throughout Sorcerer, and throughout this web sit, Ron's made it clear that he doesn't think "stories" that are a collection of genre set pieces are really Narrativist. Which is what he's trying to build -- and trying to help us build. For Ron, and for me, a story that puts people into horribly complicated relationships that complicate feeling and action are exactly the most fun.

Players who want a spy story that's about Spying are going to have a jolly time... But probably not in one of Ron's games. That's a difference between Simulationist sessions and Narrativist -- in the first you can successfully go through the "motion' of building a "story" because all the surface stuff is there. Ron is saying: "Go deeper. There's a heartbeat underneath the trappings. And here are some ways to make that heartbeat heard clearly during play."

So. If you have players who don?t need to know that the woman they?re turning for the CIA has a father who's already terrified of getting on the list of the secret police -- fine. But for me, when that father flees when he realizes what's going on and puts the whole mission in jeopardy because the daughter won't cooperate, I don't know what the protagonists are going to do, but I know that how they handle the daughter and the father make the mission all that much more sensitive, emotional, and revealing about the characters *as they take action reflected through the Pemise.*

Will these ties work better than two guys who work at the office? Maybe, maybe not depending on the group, I suppose. And certain tales can be found that don't depend on these relationships. But I think you'll find that these tales also don't go that deep into matters the really explore a Premise. (Not always, clearly. Exceptions can be found.) But Ron seems to have really researched how stories are consctructed (and I have too) and I can tell you, as a writer, if you want to increase the stakes and get the audience more engaged, hook their characters up through blood and sex. (It may not seem fair, it may not be nice, it may not be the way it should be, but there it is.)

(For the record, I find more and more any discussion of this sort without mention of a specific Premise to be meaningless. Ron always assumes there's going to be a premise. We could make the matter generic: Assume Appropriate Premise (AAP); but if find that only by choosing a real premise can useful examples be created, real problems solved. The question that would need to be asked, working backwards, is: in a world where spies interact with people who don't have sexual and familial relationships impinging on them, what honest, worthwhile premise is possible? Again, you could do it without these ties -- obviously -- but which choice will be richer, more complex and offering more meat during the course of the story?)

Christopher,

Thanks for the long and well-considered response. I find much value in your final paragraph (paraphrased, "further discussion may be meaningless without a specific Premise"), but I need to clarify one bit - just as Ron is not claiming affiliation/ideology are unimportant, I'm not claiming we should have "a world where spies interact with people who don't have sexual and familial relationships" - I'm questioning why, in a world that has both familial/sexual AND other relationships, we should make the familial/sexual links the CORE of our map.

In your example of the nervous father and the daughter being turned . . . my instinct would be to build a map around the fact that the daughter is "available" for turning, and that the father is terrified of the secret police. Then I'd expand, perhaps with "why" information - is the daughter available because she's greedy (perhaps - and I'm making this up, I have no map-tool in mind that would provide this - a link to a "Greed" node on the map)? Ideologically motivated (link to "Individual Freedom")? Is the father terrified because of something he once did (link to "Secret Past")? Simply because the secret police are brutal (link to "Personal Cowardice")? Did he once see someone beaten to death (link to "Grounded Fear")? I can see how all this can be tweaked to various Premises of a spy game, and brought to bear to hook players interested in Greed, Ideological Motivations, and the like. The father/daughter relationship becomes a (possibly quite powerful and important) stressor on these Premise-associated "lines". Put another way . . . someone wants the daughter to betray the double-agent attempting to recruit her, and thus stresses her "Political Ideologue" trait. The fact that the "someone" is her *father* ups the ante, perhaps in a very effective way, but what REALLY matters (for purposes of story, Premise, and hooking players who are already interested in that particular kind of story and Premise) is the "Political Ideologue" issue. Again, that's where my instinct leads me.

Ron seems to me to be saying my instinct is wrong - I should map the familial/sexual, and the rest of it will be stressors on those relationships. He says this will be a better starting point, hook players more effectively, and provide superior exploration of Premise. At the moment, I find this an Impossible Thing to Believe.

So . . . not NO family/sex, not just "two guys in the office." My conundrum springs from "Why family/sex as the Overriding, Primary Focus?" One main answer seems to be "remember, a map exists to hook the protagonists into a developing story. Family/sex is a GREAT hook." OK, got ya. Really - I understand that. I'm already thinking about the MANY ways I can use that bit of wisdom - and it is wisdom. But, is it always (or even mostly) the very best way? For me and my group, I can see SOME situations where the opposite is true - continually FOCUSING on the familial/sexual will become a dull and predictable gambit. Of course, IGNORING it would have the same problem . . .

Heh. I've gone on much longer than I intended too. I'm diving into the deep end and developing a Sorcerer story centered around terrorism, and certainly the vague, ill-defined "map" (possibly entirely the wrong word) in my mind will use sex and family - in the manner I describe above, as stressors on the more "fundamental" links of chosen allegiance and committed actions. That'll be where "the rubber hits the road" for me, though I look forward to other posts in this thread as folks feel they have something to add.

Gordon

Ron Edwards wrote:
Gareth, if this outlook presents a conflict with what you would like people to be like, or to do, there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not inclined to address any model or outlook that you extrapolate from it (as distinct from the original), nor to address any "feelings" you bring to the discussion.

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
problems solved. The question that would need to be asked, working backwards, is: in a world where spies interact with people who don't have sexual and familial relationships impinging on them, what honest, worthwhile premise is possible? Again,

In fact I find it an odd claim in the light of your interest in the Thirty Years War; what better evidence could be given for the power of abstraction and ideology to motivate human beings? One might suggest even further that these drivers are so powerful as to sever the normal bonds of sex/blood, and that the frequency with which this occurs should suggest that the sex/blood relationship is like gravity - omnipresent, but easily overcome by other forces.

This response is primarily intended for Gareth:

The reason that sex/blood/death relationships are primary are because they simply are. Strip everything else away, and that's what you are left with. Why? Because we're flesh-meat-animals, plain and simple, and flesh-meat-animals are all about sex, blood and death.

You use the example of the Thirty Years War as a counter-point to this, stating that the Thirty Years War is a prime example of ideological motivations. However, I'm betting that if you remove all the ideological frosting from the cake, you end up with a lot of very basic, primal motivations cleverly disguised by human intellect as being about something else.

Of course, your example also misses the point, which not that ideological motivators do not exist or do not influence humans, but that they do so on top of a web of sex/blood/death.

In short, no one fights because they believe in something...they fight for something because it ended up mattering to them on a personal, motivating level. Simple belief, in and of itself, is not enough...there must be a driving urge behind that belief to cause it to become a motivation that is acted upon.

How is this so? Look at any individuals life and you find a complex web of relationships underlying it. They may not appear in the history books we all read and the events that are written down, but they're there, and they are the primary and shaping forces in any individual's life...they're also invisible to the general public and the pen of history.

Let us make an example: Thomas, the inventor, stays at his lab all night most days during the week, neglecting his son and wife for his inventions, which he loves and adores.

What's really going on?

Thomas hates his wife; he despises her constant naging and demands for attention and because he has spent so much time away from home, he has no idea how to interact with his son. His drive to invent and create are shaped and formed by this relationship...if he loved spending time with his wife, he wouldn't be at the lab and he wouldn't be as prolific as he is.

Another example: a young man goes off to war, to fight for his country. Why? Because he loves his country...actually, he's trying to escape from his parents, get away from home and strike out on his own to prove himself as an adult.
If he had no desire to prove himself as discrete from his parents, he never would have joined the army.

Do the characters ever need to realize any of this? Nope.

Thus any example that might be referenced fails to support the contention that sex/blood/death are not primary fails to take into account that at the base of everyone's life exist these very primal, instinctual motivators, regardless of the events which are recorded for posterity.

Yes, so-and-so may have led the charge that broke the enemy's lines, but what so-and-so is doing out there in the first place, what their social-sexual relationships are, is where the person is.

Gordon,

And thank you for your thoughtful post in return. Just so you know, I was responding specifically to this sentence in your original post:

"If we're playing a spy game, goddammit, they're going to want the game be about SPYING, not who's sleeping with who or who's related to who."

If I extrapolated this point beyond what you meant, I apologize. But it seemed quite a strong statement, and at the crux of difference between normal Simulationist Gaming and Narrativist.

Gareth,

1) For the record, just so you don't feel alone and surrounded on this point, I don't think we're flesh-plant-animals. For the record, I value emotions *and* ideas. For the record, I reiterate what others have said, The R-Map doesn't denigrate ideas or the soul, it is simply a tool to add more tension to story, to bring out more interest and to highlight the dificulty off being alive as a person with ideas and a soul.

2) For the record, I think Valamir nailed it. You may have alredy dismissed his reply, but I'd take one more look after taking in some deep breaths.

3) For the record, please submit the great spy novel/play/short/story/movie with a strong Premise that *doesn't* have stressors on family and sex among the characters.

4) For the record, when you make statements like "cursory reading of history" or, in the other thread on this subject, refer to stories that use relationships of family and sex to heighten all the other aspects of the story as "not as satsifying" as other kinds of stories, I really am stuck, and can only reply:

Sophicles, Euripedes, Ovid, Homer, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, Thomas Mallory, Moliere, Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Milton, William Blake, G.B. Shaw, Charles Dickens, Jane Austin, George Elliot, Mary Shelly, Victor Hugo, Proust, Thomas Mann, Hemingway, James Joyce, John Le Carre, Grahm Green, Sam Sheppard, Phillip Pullman, Anne Tyler, Angela Carter, John Crowley, Johathan Franzen -- off the top of my head.

*No one here is saying the R-Map is the primary aspect of any session.* Nor would I say the works and authors above make family and sex the key to the works -- but by God, family and sex is all over those works, strengthening whatever else is going on in the story. To miss that is to only be able to argue that by mentioning this, I'm claiming these stories are only about family and sex, which would be strange, since I clearly pointed out in the previous sentence that's exactly what I'm not doing.

Hi Gordon,

PART ONE
I evidently tangled you up a bit with the "complexity" issue, so let me clarify that.

[Interesting: I drafted about 70% of a small Sorcerer supplement called "Paragon" exactly about these issues in December. Other things came up since then, but clearly I should have stuck with it.]

Think in terms of concentric circles, like a dartboard. The innermost circle is one's own well-being, one's romantic/sexual contacts and commitments, and one's children. The circle right outside that is one's kin: siblings, cousins, parents, etc. These together are "category 1."

Note that conflicts may occur entirely within either zone, e.g., my uncle vs. brother, or my life vs. my child's. They may also occur between zones, e.g., my marriage vs. what my family thinks of my spouse.

Now draw two more outer circles, which together make "category 2." By and large, you may consider a single tie in this category to be weaker than a single tie in category one, although the cumulative effect of many ties and extraordinary circumstances for a given tie can override this trend.

The next circle out concerns reciprocity - doing stuff in ways that tend to rebound on oneself favorably, along socially-acknowledged modes. Things like political alliances (or identity if you want to call it that), ethnic membership, religious institutions, social action groups, terrorist organizations, whatever. Both oppression and activism vs. oppression fall into this zone.

Finally, the other, outermost circle of category 2 concerns any interactions with those one does not know or does not perceive oneself to know (this is an important concept; we often think we know people we don't, like one's "countrymen" in the abstract, and treat them as if they were in the previous zone). Actions concerning ties of this sort (if they may be called ties at all) include "good Samaritan" actions and, conversely, "Unabomber" actions.

All of these categories exist. Consider the following:

1) The pound-for-pound strength of these ties, in a default sense, are stronger the more inward you go. Note that if this is not the case for a person, it is indeed the case in terms of others' judgments of that person.

2) Actions may be taken that reinforce ties in more than one zone at once, such that one helps one's kin and the community simultaneously. The sense of "justification" regarding these actions is extraordinarily powerful.

3) (related to above) Note that most "self-sacrificing" activities correspond to combinations of powerful ties at the social-alliance zone in concert with ties in category 1 (the two innermost zones).

4) Deception of others regarding both ties/relationships as well as past actions is exceptionally effective, as it tends to result in non-deceptive reciprocation by others in the social-alliance zone. It is also risky - discovered deception engenders massive resentment, and at that socially-allied level, angry humans are a fearsome opponent.

5) Morality per se (in the strictly descriptive sense, with no reference to the Absolute) originates from the constant juggling and re-combining of effort among these zones of relationship. Since no one particular zone is "the good one," and since conflicts among them arise constantly, humans are very attentive, very confused, and very negotiatory creatures.

6) Stories which address these kinds of conflicts (as opposed to simple ones like "will this girl get that guy" or "oh no, flee the predatory monster") are, by definition, dramatic. That's what drama is.

PART TWO
You legitimately ask "why," which applies to my point #1 above. The answer concerns issues that almost nobody is well-informed enough to address without some serious pedagogical preparation. Suffice to say that I am working from extremely hard-core principles of biology, cognition, literature, and sociology in confluence. (See the reference list below.) I will follow up on this privately if you desire.

Furthermore, since the precise construction of these issues, and its application to narrative, are my own professional work rather than some textbook, recognize that I cannot be accused of dogmatism (i.e. following "the word" from on high). Discussion of these matters therefore must be strictly in the form of discourse, not what one feels to be true. I place strict limits on whom I enter into this discourse with, as (bluntly) it is not worth my time to do otherwise.

Finally, the "four zones" model above is *not* the entirety of the human being. Imagination, language (a sub-set of cognition), and religiosity - and most importantly, the definition and role of development - should be acknowledged as related topics.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I should point out that you have just received information worth several hundred dollars of consulting fees. Yes, people pay me to work this stuff out for them, regarding specific stories and scripts.

P.P.S. References include The Biology of Moral Systems by Richard Alexander, The Biological Roots of Human Nature by Timothy Goldsmith, The Origin of Virtue by Matt Ridley, The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker, Introduction to Comparative Cognition by Herbert Roitblat, and The Human Animal by Weston La Barre. Combine these readings with Mystifying Movies by Noel Carroll, Men Women and Chainsaws by C. Clover, The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, and Sayles on Sayles. Also see Mythologies by Roland Barthes, and Subculture: the Meaning of Style by Dick Hebdidge.

P.P.P.S. My views and thoughts on this matter are distinctly opposed to those of (a) Laura Mulvey and Christian Metz, whose writings I consider to be unmitigated bullshit; (b) "science studies," ditto; and (c) the Frankfurt school of ideological criticism, which is nonetheless good reading, e.g. Mark Crispin Miller's Seeing Through Movies for a basic/intro view.

Ron,

That was a fantastic post.

Paul

greyorm wrote:
not that ideological motivators do not exist or do not influence humans, but that they do so on top of a web of sex/blood/death.

Dramatic stories lacking explicit kinship/sex ties are quite possible. To no one's surprise, they occur in settings and situations in which those ties are unavailable except as memories: men isolated in conditions of war, for example.

Hi Mike,

I think a careful reading of my above post (the circles) will help with your conundrum.

Place a group of people into a situation in which the "inner circles" are not immediately relevant. Their concerns will necessarily concern relationships, decisions, and actions concerning the outer ones - usually the "social alliances" circle, e.g. national identity, sides in a military conflict, small-group cooperative concerns (e.g. men of different nations in a POW camp).

Two sources of conflict emerge. The first is (a) "official" social alliances like one's designated army or country of origin, against (b) "unofficial" ones like being victimized in the same, oppressive situation together. This is a powerful issue, especially when #1 becomes more and more abstract. I call attention to the documented instance of WWI soldiers calling an unofficial cease-fire across the trenches on Christmas Day, and joining their foes for a few hours of peace to celebrate the holiday. Conversely, note that #1 may be prevented from becoming too abstract by constant reminding of the inner-circle associations of "official" alliances. (I'm fighting for my country and my family, and I have this picture of my wife tucked in my pocket to remind me.)

The second source of conflict is the immediate demands of the innermost circle (e.g. survival in the moment) against the demands of any social alliances, of whatever sort (i.e. those defined above). This is the whole "traitor," "which side matters," issue.

Both of these issues in concert give rise to your "Honor vs. Victory" Premise. Both of them take strength from somewhat abstract associations with the inner two circles, and they take center-stage in a story when those inner circles cannot be directly acted upon due to circumstances.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:
On to Ralph's take. First to quell Chris I will put my Bridge on the River Kwai concept into Premise form. "Is Honor more important than Victory?" Now, going into the game with that idea, to take Ralph's idea I suppose that the game would be better if I somehow managed to bring the Camp Commandant's wife into the game or one of his offspring. Or his mistress. Or somehow to have the Brittish POWs have their loved ones involved.

I wonder why David Lean didn't think of that when he filmed the movie?

To repeat the question, what do I do in this case?

Just to be clear, here. In my theoretical game you would still map out a relationship map for the purpose of "punching up" the power of the characters' actions?

See, this seems weird. I know it's possibly a fallacious idea, but the way I see it, the best execution for the "Bridge" scenario would be for the GM to portray the characters much as they were portrayed in the film (modified of course by the player interaction). Anyhow, not once anywhere in the film does any character ever once refer to any family. At least not that I can remember, which is the important part (And I've seen the film at least ten times). In fact, I'd hazard that it was sort of important to display the British as not whimpering about so-and-so being a family man. The concept of honor here forbids such activity. Stiff upper lip, you know.

Before anyone jumps on it, the one excetion from the film is William Holden's character, but he would be a PC and not on the map, and his relationship with the nurse is a complete throwaway. Even in Alec Guinesses meanderings about how the bridge might make them remembered for years to come, I don't believe that he ever mentions family or anything.

So, while a relationship map might make the situation more potent for me, the GM, how will it have any effect on the players who will never see any indication of the map. At least not if I'm doing the movie as Lean did. Survival? Are you saying that I can only portray the urge for survival if I as the GM know that the character has some family? The players will not know. In the film the Commandant threatens to gun down all the brittish officers if they do not work, but, despite not knowing if they have relations, you still feel for them. They may assume there are relations, but then if they can do that then why the need for the map in this circumstance?

Is it a difference in the media (film vs. RPGs)? Or would you claim that Lean's version of the story was not well portrayed (would have been improved by imserting family or lovers somehow)? Or again am I missing another option?

Mike

Clay wrote:
In summary, just because relationship maps are great tools, don't automatically assume that they're the only tool we should use. My circular saw is a great tool, but I don't use it when I'm re-wiring the basement. Likewise, when I'm telling a story where the important conflict is internal, I probably don't need a tool designed for supporting external conflicts.

Hey,

Is there a place in the model, and in the Bridge Over the River Kwai scenario, for the notion that men pursue fame, and power because these things increase their desirability as a mate, their ability to mate more often, and to choose from a wider selection of more attractive partners? Is this notion a linkage from category 2 into category 1, or a non-factor?

Paul

Paul Czege wrote:
Is there a place in the model, and in the Bridge Over the River Kwai scenario, for the notion that men pursue fame, and power because these things increase their desirability as a mate, their ability to mate more often, and to choose from a wider selection of more attractive partners? Is this notion a linkage from category 2 into category 1, or a non-factor?

Mike,

Your entire point, question, and claim is based on a misapplication of terms.

You are not talking about a relationship map, you are talking about a "feelings matrix." That is fine. You can make up a feelings-matrix, and use that as a basic reference during play. This is a standard RPG technique and I have no beef with it. It is not, however, a relationship map of any kind.

Imagine a scenario with plenty of relationship-map material, and look! You can have a feelings matrix too, right there alongside it. That's called "notes."

Now, imagine a scenario in which the individuals are isolated from family and sexual/romantic contact. Oh look! All you have now is the feelings-matrix.

What is so difficult about that? I am claiming that the former method has more "grab," and glory be, it does have more grab (see Christopher's examples). That means that successful stories of the second type have to be exceptional in their content in order to be good at all. Or, to put it another way, a relationship-map story is very effective even if it's kinda stupid, but a non-relationship-map story is only effective when it's very, very good.

"Kinda stupid" vs. "very good" in the above paragraph is a function of how well the conflicts are articulated, how little time is lost on irrelevant stuff, and how much "pressure" is being put on characters during key scenes - in other words, pacing, performance, and reinforcement, as well as including the non-kin issues I described above.

Again, you are not challenging any claim I've made. You're discussing the potential effectiveness of another technique entirely.

To falsify my claim, one would have to find an example of a compelling story in which the non-relationship-map concerns were prevalent over relationship-map concerns, when the latter are present and available.

For instance, in Aliens, Newt is not Ripley's actual daughter. However, their daughter-mother bond is full and valid in audience terms because no other "actual" daughter or "actual" parent is present, and indeed, Ripley learned, earlier, that her own actual daughter was dead.

If you could find a reverse of that situation, specifically one in which the "actual" bond has not been invalidated in some way (e.g. the actual daughter cannot be a psychopath or otherwise "unavailable"), then I'd be interested. I expect that you'll be looking for a long time.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:
[Ah, but Clay, that is the point of this entire thread. Ron's claim is that his version of the Relationship Map is superior to others in all circumstances.

Mike,

Knock off the Freudian references already. Paul's point is modified-Darwinist and the two bases of theory are profoundly different. You're harming your position.

If you're being generic with "Freudian" to mean only "underlying basis for behavior," then say so. If you are using it literally, then you are making no sense.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:
Perhaps it was from Raven that I got the idea that it was based on Freudianism.

Mike Holmes wrote:
absolute pre-eminence has similarities to Freud's basic ideas that all motivations come back to these three

Now, going into the game with that idea, to take Ralph's idea I suppose that the game would be better if I somehow managed to bring the Camp Commandant's wife into the game or one of his offspring. Or his mistress. Or somehow to have the Brittish POWs have their loved ones involved.

This is going to be of more importance than the ideological relationships between the characters?

Ron Edwards wrote:
Or, to put it another way, a relationship-map story is very effective even if it's kinda stupid, but a non-relationship-map story is only effective when it's very, very good.

"Humans are very attentive, very confused, and very negotiatory creatures. "

Well. Ron's got my number at least.

Christopher

Ron,

a. I'm clueless and b. if I weren't, I'd almost certainly agree with you.

But if you happen to find yourself in a video store with a good non-mainstream selection and you don't have anything else in mind, pick up Beat Takeshi's flick Brother, as Emily Care mentioned. I'd love to hear what you think of it. As I recall it, we find the relationship between the lead and his brother's friend much more compelling than the relationship between the lead and his brother, and we judge the morality of the lead's actions in terms of the relationship with the friend, not the brother. All three are present in the scene, it's not like his brother's out of the picture, and he and his brother are close, allies, not enemies. So if there's substitution going on (like Ripley and Newt) it's subtle and very effective.

His other movies, the blood and sex relationships are definitely prime.

-Vincent

Christopher,

Ah, the perils and pitfalls of forum-based communications. I let myself get a little emotional with "If we're playing a spy game, goddammit, they're going to want the game be about SPYING, not who's sleeping with who or who's related to who," and look at the trouble it gets me :-) The key word there for me is "about" - the game is ABOUT spying (or more accurately, about a Premise that somehows ties in very well with spying), but can include as elements/issues/etc. . . well, whatever seems good.

Ron,

"Thanks" seems like a good place to start. I'm continually impressed with the generousity (of their time, effort, and knowledge) that everyone here at the Forge offers, and (even just by looking at the posting stats), no one sane is going to accuse you of being ungenerous. I am 100% certain that there is great value and usefulness in your model/post, and I'm sure I'll be mulling it over for some time.

I *think* I can focus in a bit better on some of my core questions/issues about the sex and family focus. I'm out of time now, but . . . I'll be back. I see just a bit more juice here, before it's (*finally*, some folks are no doubt saying) time to move on . . .

Gordon

I feel that there is quite a bit of eqivocation going on here, but, hey, that's communication. I probably am just suffering from a lack of oxygen or something. We've all made our points. Isn't this the point at which you usually call the thread to a close, Ron?

Mike

"There is no such thing as peace, just periods of mutual exhaustion." I'm not sure where that quote is from, perhaps John Gardner's Grendel.

Somewhat more optimistically, I'm pretty sure we're all at least closer to understanding one another's views. Thanks to all, and Mike's right, this is probably the "call it" moment.

Best,
Ron

Hell, a lot has already been said, but this morning I decided to post about it, so here are my two cents...

First, R-map is a tool, that you should use IF it promote the kind of story you want to tell.

Second, IMO R-maps are designed to give another depth to a situation.
e.g. in Twin Peaks, Laura Palmer gets killed, whoa, big deal. This way it's just another murder case. But if her father killed her that's a lot more creepy.
e.g. #2, in Violent Cop (by Takeshi Kitano), during the last scene, the lead character kills a youg lady who's been raped a drugged to the point that she's addicted. With this situation you think "whoa, big deal !"(again :) ). But what if this woman is his young sister that he kill out of mercy ?

I think that R-map is a great tool because it allows you to look at any situation and apply effective, emotionaly strong twist to power the drama of your story.
It's not The Ultimate Tool, but an efficient one. More so if you're comited in a deep relationship kind of game, but even in a straight game, it can give it depth and an emotional dimension.

Why ?

Because, IMO relation maps are touching the player, not the characters.
It's all about Transgression.
The strenght of the R-map is about the distance/opposition between what is usually expected from a relation and what really is happening in the story.
In the Twin Peak exemple, the shock of the revelation is efficient because it opposes the father's traditional features.
-traditional: protection, love, guidance, security.
-trangressed: violence, lust, destruction, insecurity.

R-maps can act as a filter trough witch you can view any situation in a new (often more dramatical) way.

So yes, it's a tool to deepen the emotional commitment of your story.
Is it the best one ? Yes if what you want is damatical depth in relationship.

Well, just my two euros ;)

Fabrice.

It is really, really easy to "wander" when discussing this issue, and I'll probably do so in this post. But the core issue for me is "I want a compelling story in my game. Is a blood/sex-based R-Map the best way to go, especially in terms of hooking the player's interest?"

(Note that the phrase "compelling story" encapsulates quite a lot - interesting Premise, engages the players, has opportunity for Drama, etc.)

Perceived answer from Ron et al: "Yes - unless you've got a situation where the R-Map elements aren't available, and in that case, you've increased the difficulty of creating a compelling story. Remember, even when you have a R-Map other elements are still important - look at them as "stressors" on those R-Map lines."

My claim: "Best way? It depends. If blood/sex are available, it's going to be useful to have a Map of them. For some stories, that may be almost enough in itself. For others, you may need to "map" other elements, or use another tool - feelings matrix? - to bring out elements useful in the exploration of your Premise. What hooks your players may be those other elements, or the R-Map - if the former occurs or seems likely to occur, you MIGHT still use the blood/sex elements to "stress" that other element."

Actually, there's not a *huge* disparity between these approaches, and so for me, these threads are in some ways a tempest in a . . . not a teacup, but hardly an ocean either (there is a disparity, and it may well be important, but I'm not sure NOW important). And there was a lot of strength and zeal in the "blood and sex first" statements that just didn't ring true for me - so that's why I'm in these threads.

Now, a bit of wandering - first, a quote from greyorm -

Every human individual has at their motivating root their social relationships, the strongest of which are sex/blood/death or love/power/fear if you prefer

To falsify my claim, one would have to find an example of a compelling story in which the non-relationship-map concerns were prevalent over relationship-map concerns, when the latter are present and available.

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
As I understand Ron's model, love/power/fear are NOT in the inner circle, and are NOT synonomous with sex/blood (or death, which is another matter entirely).

My fear in using blood & sex all the time as the primary focus of lines on an R-Map - and using those R-Maps in an RPG - is that I see it almost-inevitably leading to an endless chain of "not only is she a betrayer - she betrayed her OWN DAUGHTER!", "not only is he greedy, but he SLEPT HIS WAY to the top!", "how can you love her - she was MARRIED TO HITLER!"

In short, eventually EVERYTHING becomes bad soap opera.

Raven,

I lost a rather long reply here when my login timed out, and I don't have the heart to recreate it. Super-short (for me) version - "love = sex" is not, by my reading, part of what Ron's talking about here.

Ripley/Newt soap-operesque? Probably a matter of opinion. My own varies based on mood - at times, yeah, it seems like just a cheap Hollywood manipulation to set-up the "Battle of the Mothers".

But I'm NOT saying realtionship maps are about cheap television hooks. I like 'em, even with blood and sex, I just question why blood & sex (in their pure form, ignoring the "everything can be seen as blood and sex" perspective for the moment) would always be primary.

I think that's most of it . . .

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
I lost a rather long reply here when my login timed out, and I don't have the heart to recreate it. Super-short (for me) version - "love = sex" is not, by my reading, part of what Ron's talking about here.

I'm NOT saying realtionship maps are about cheap television hooks. I like 'em, even with blood and sex, I just question why blood & sex (in their pure form, ignoring the "everything can be seen as blood and sex" perspective for the moment) would always be primary.

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
Ripley/Newt soap-operesque? Probably a matter of opinion. My own varies based on mood - at times, yeah, it seems like just a cheap Hollywood manipulation to set-up the "Battle of the Mothers".

greyorm wrote:
Why? Because we're flesh-meat-animals, plain and simple, and flesh-meat-animals are all about sex, blood and death.

However, I'm betting that if you remove all the ideological frosting from the cake, you end up with a lot of very basic, primal motivations cleverly disguised by human intellect as being about something else.

Of course, your example also misses the point, which not that ideological motivators do not exist or do not influence humans, but that they do so on top of a web of sex/blood/death.

In short, no one fights because they believe in something...they fight for something because it

Let us make an example: Thomas, the inventor, stays at his lab all night most days during the week, neglecting his son and wife for his inventions, which he loves and adores.

What's really going on?

Another example: a young man goes off to war, to fight for his country. Why? Because he loves his country...actually, he's trying to escape from his parents, get away from home and strike out on his own to prove himself as an adult.

Thus any example that might be referenced fails to support the contention that sex/blood/death are not primary fails to take into account that at the base of everyone's life exist these very primal, instinctual motivators, regardless of the events which are recorded for posterity.

Hi everyone,

Raven's post above has stated the "primacy" issue very nicely.

One thing about this and previous threads that has made me uncomfortable is that I am not certain that Gordon, in particular, has received confirmation that his concerns are being heard. I will be first to state that (a) his concerns are valid and (b) they deserve respect as such. My extensive replies have not been presented as a crushing weight of dogma to squelch the questions, but as my best attempts (in this medium) to deal with his legitimate inquiry.

Gordon has raised two issues that need clarifying - note, not answering, just clarifying in terms of issues and argument.

1) My first post in this thread about internal vs. external should be reviewed - we are not, and cannot, be discussing things which may be answered by "How I look at it" or "How that made me feel." The concern is efficacy of scenario design in Narrativist role-playing. We are talking about effects and reactions of people across groups - e.g. a bunch of role-players, a movie audience, a collective readership across centuries, or anything like that.

Therefore Gordon's concern about "[name of movie] compels me more than [name of other movie]" is of interest, but it is not a falsifier - we cannot be discussing stories in terms of individual reactions, but in terms of generalized reactions. Or, if I'm mistaken about this, then the entire discussion has gone awry, because it could only have resulted in a single post, "Oh, that's interesting" and be done.

(To some extent, I generated the problem by describing a potential falsifier, and I surmise that a Forge member or two is going to scour the Earth until he finds a bundle of them in order to say "Naaaah!" Unfortunately for them, that falsifier potentially exists, but evidence of its existence is going to have to override the considerable evidence for my claim. Contrary to popular belief, "a single falsifier" is actually not enough.)

2) Gordon legitimately asked the foundational question: "Well, then ... why?" I have taken this to private discussion as I do not consider it suited for a public forum. Frankly, the answer is technical, disturbing, and potentially misleading given certain common misconceptions. The question at hand for this discussion was not why, but what, and I think it's been addressed.

Best,
Ron

greyorm wrote:
This is perhaps the source of the problem...I attempted, and apparently failed, to indicate that they are not pre-eminent -- that is, existing above and beyond all else -- but basic, existing at the root. They may never be seen by the chronicler, or ever thought of by the chronicled, but they are nonetheless the primary influence/motivator of the rest of the personality. Every human individual has at their motivating root their social relationships, the strongest of which are sex/blood/death or love/power/fear if you prefer.

Well stated, Gareth. I should like to point out that all of my material in this thread is referring to most common and widespread behaviors, not to what Joe Bob is going to do this very next minute.

All discussion so far as been at the level that I might present to college freshmen in a "let's talk about film" course (in fact, I do teach such a course). To address the concerns you're raising, we'd have to rack it up to a level worthy of college senior or beginning-grad level discussion. We could spend an entire semester examining the facilitative, cyclical effect of ideologies as products of these behaviors (e.g. social-alliance level), self-reinforcers of these behaviors, and ultimately (in many cases) self-destructive entities regarding these behaviors. Participants would have to develop an understanding of "selection" that applies to any transmissible entity/phenomenon, that does or does not apply under various conditions, and that can contribute to extinction as well as to perpetuation of the group in question. (This understanding is rarely achieved in college education, rendering the class I am describing almost impossible to conduct; I have seen it occur only with flickering, variable levels of success.)

To rack it up to a level one might find among professionals, this discussion enters zones in which hardened biologists, philosophers, and sociologists often founder. It remains one of the most trenchant, terrifying issues in the most cutting-edge and integrative overlaps among fields today.

Best,
Ron

Now you have me quite interested indeed, Ron. The smoke is coming out of my ears after parsing that post, but yes, I think I follow you and what I think I understand has me wanting to learn more.

My quick two cents -- not responding directly to Ron's point, but to the gist of the rest of the thread -- is that I see a distinction between the discussion of R-map components and a discussion of foundational story elements. The primal plot movers sex and murder (and perhaps mystery) are distinct from the R-map bonds of sex and blood-ties, in my opinion. I'm not sure, but I think some of the back-and-forth has resulted from people confusing the plot movers for the relationships. Note that the sex-murder-mystery (or sex-murder) plot list is only the most condensed version of the how-many-plots-are-there theory. One may start with plot movers and add the relationship structure, or one may begin with the relationships and inject the plot movers, but they are two different birds.

Best,

Blake

First, I don't think that this situation is one where the relationship map is a good tool to use.

AndyGuest wrote: A relationship map is useful where family/sex relationships are important. Where, for example, honour is the driving factor maybe we should have an honour map ?

Blake Hutchins wrote:
some of the back-and-forth has resulted from people confusing the plot movers for the relationships