In (Accept/Reject) x (Text/Meaning) I was eventually convinced that there is something to just plain enjoying your character (absent any other drive). Way back in game design and psychology Emily Care pointed out to us all that there are important parts of the psychological/dramatic curve that have no direct connection to conflict or its resolution, but are nonetheless important.

So I've been thinking back, to both fiction and RPGs, looking for such moments that I really liked.

In Farscape, they had an introduction once where the rag-tag crew of Moya received a distress call. They looked at each other, unsure how to even think about this, and then John Crichton voiced what they were all thinking... "Someone is so desperate their asking for help... from us?" And damned if that isn't (to me) one of the funniest moments of television I've ever witnessed.

In the last Amber game I ever played, I had a scene where Dara and my character Harper fenced verbally, threatening death and destruction and the obliteration of worlds, and like that, but each with a sly smile. And it was all just prelude to getting to the real, specific issues... we were posturing, and knew it. And I think I loved Harper more in that moment than I ever did before or after... much more than when he suffered greatly, or achieved greatly.

What strikes me (and maybe, hopefully, strikes others) is that these show the same principle at work. You've got a situation, which is (absent the characters) cliched by definition. There is, after all, nothing new under the sun. A space-ship receives a distress call... yawn. Two Amberites prepare to have a power-laced conversation... yawn.

But then you take that situation, and you make it individual, you make it personal... you say "These are the guys, right here, who are going to be handling this. It's not just any situation now, it's their situation."

I loved Harper in that precious moment because I knew that this wasn't going to be the same conversation I'd had a thousand times before. It couldn't. It would be something unique to him, and the way he dealt with the world. And I didn't even have to like the way he dealt with the world... I could love him for the fact that he made the Amber universe I loved new and fresh again.

But there were times, so many times, that Harper couldn't do that, because I didn't give him the warm-up or integration time. When I leapt straight into conversations, without any prelude, and then departed them without any epilogue, I ended up doing the same old generic schtick again. I had a great character, and I had classic situations, but I didn't take the time to apply one to the other.

Am I saying anything that people recognize here?

And if I am, how can a system cause people to choose to take this time? I know, I know, it's easy to force them to take the time, to give them exercises that step them through the warm-up and integration. But I'm against structures that dictate player action, and for structures that give players reasons to choose the right things at the right time. Have you had actual play experiences where you just naturally did this type of prologue and epilogue, bookending your situation and its resolution with the application of the characters to that situation? What made it natural?

Tony,

Am I saying anything that people recognize here?

Hi Tony,

What you're talking about is emotional investment.

TV shows and movies create emotional investment by spotlighting character quirks and personality, both under duress and without it. Characters also tend to be spotlighted particularly in how they treat each other.

With roleplaying, I've found that "standardized" gamers tend to stay task- focused, and not character focused, and getting those moments are few and far between. Instead of getting a feel for the characters "in the first few episodes", most people have to build it up over months of play.

I think a few techniques help reverse this trend:
- Group character creation- particularly if players create pre-established relationships
- Author Stance
- Bangs- what is your character like under pressure?
- Player input into conflicts and scene framing- "I want to have a scene where..." allows players to spotlight aspects of their characters themselves
- Relationship/Ideals mechanics- such as Humanity, SAs, traits, etc. It allows both the player and the GM to focus on what matters emotionally to the character

Chris

Gosh, Chris, it doesn't sound very much like what I'm talking about. What makes you think they're the same thing? Can you give some examples from your actual play?

I think Chris has a very good point in,

TV shows and movies create emotional investment by spotlighting character quirks and personality, both under duress and without it. Characters also tend to be spotlighted particularly in how they treat each other.

Hi Tony,

Sure thing.

I recently began playing in a very Sim Unearthed Armies game- the group is very big on Actor stance and how well you portray your character. The basic situation is a CSI type game, investigators and all that. Upon reflection of what wasn't working for me in terms of play- I realized I don't give a flying fig about any of the characters. I don't KNOW any of the characters, I have barely a feel for them- and the focus of play is on solving the mystery, not interaction(though there's TONS of having to play in character...). The situation is identical to what you're talking about with having good characters, good situations, but being unable to link gears between the two.

Comparing this to a game of Universalis I played a couple of years ago- where by the end of the session, we had a complete grasp on the characters, and after a few initial scenes, we were consistantly hitting those "just right" moments of character, resolution, situation.

In the literary tradition, good stories are always about characters as much as the plot. The plot serves as a vehicle to learn about the characters, and to allow them to change. In roleplaying, while we don't have static structures to work with, we can pull on the idea that conflict, character, and resolution are supposed to be knit together.

In this sense, giving players input to conflict, or scene framing allows them to establish those prologues and produce the space to spot light their characters, and having personality mechanics helps focus the resolution on the characters as well. In this way, the players are empowered to make that linkage between character and situation without being "forced" to.

What made it natural was... well, everyone grows up exposed to stories- so we had a natural feel for narrative structure and character- the mechanics allowed us to make that happen without having to fight it. By being able to show off the characters as more than a collection of powers, suddenly we had emotional connections to them. Suddenly the swordsman's torrid affair with the general's daughter had meaning for everyone at the table. Those specific characters, that specific situation, it clicked perfectly- because we had the power to express the characters personalities, set up in scene framing and choice of conflict, and the decisions made that produced resolution.

Chris

Madeline, Chris, you are not talking about what I'm talking about.

I am discussing a particular technique (possibly even an ephemera). You are discussing a creative goal. I know this because while I am talking about particular scenes, you are talking about the tenor of entire campaigns. While I agree with most everything you are saying, you are (nonetheless) not benefitting me in any way whatsoever.

So, let me make it clear: Yay for emotional investment! I think emotional investment rocks. In fact, I am very hopeful that this particular and specific technique I'm trying to get a handle on will help me to encourage emotional investment (and a host of other rocking things).

There, that's over with. Now, do you have any actual play examples of the specific, limited, type that I provided? A single scene, either in preparation for conflict or integration of the results of conflict, but not conflict itself, which gave you a strong sense of how the particular character and particular situation were meshing? Something, in short, that we can analyze in detail rather than broad strokes?

Hi Tony,

Sorry. Here-

Universalis- big Wuxia game. Another player, J, and I, had both been pouring lots and lots of coins into guiding this one swordsman... whose name I can't remember, but it was something like "Thundersword" Lu... Anyway, he ends up being branded an outlaw for helping out another outlaw, and his mentor, the General ends up going against him. Lu was also in love with the General's daughter, and all in all, at the end of it, the General is dead and so is the daughter.

Jason took control of the scene and narrated Lu burying the both of them- but laying his sword on the General's grave- returning the sword the General had given him, before walking away from the world of swordsmen forever.

Pretty cliched, but we had built up a lot through establishing scenes of connection between the General, the daughter, and the swordsman. For US, it was natural because we had the ability to step in and make those scenes happen- pacing was easy because everyone had some input on what could happen.

Chris

Wow! Cool! And yes, exactly what I was talking about and hoping for. So, let me commence detailed digging....

Did you have a sense (perhaps even mechanically enforced... Universalis being capable of much in that regard) that this action of laying the sword on the General's grave personalized the meaning of the things that had happened before? That it became not just "tragedy where lots of folks die", but "tragedy where lots of folks die before Lu lays down the sword forever"?

It sounds like that, but then I'm prepped to perceive that layer of meaning on top of it, because I've been thinking about things in those terms.

Hi Tony,

are you talking specifically about narrativist play? Or just about characters in situations that somehow "click"?

I would think of this wizard I was once playing in a massive campaign of "Das Schwarze Auge" (German fantasy RPG). There was a lot of exploring setting and a lot of challenge in the campaign, but the characters were well established after a while. My character, Yaro, had always played the clown at his academy and didn't give shit about tradition and authority. He had travelled with dwarves and vikings and was a well-built, tattooed, bearded fellow that could handle himself in a fistfight and would spit and curse like a true seaman. (Whereas the typical DSA wizard is much like the D&D wizard.)

Now, as we were researching yet another prophecy in a port town, I hit a pub full of sailors with my warrior companion, and had some drinks with them. I bet them that I could jump from the battlements right into the port basin and swim through the ice-cold water over to the quay. This was just a small and unimportant scene, but I remember it very fondly because it illustrated Yaro so well, and because it was just a fun thing to do. Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?

- Frank

I'm not talking specifically about narrativist play.

Your example sounds like it has the structure I'm thinking of, yeah. Was the emphasis on situation "We are researching the prophecy... look how even our research turns into tavern crawling" or "We're hitting a pub, but Yaro just can't sit there and have a tavern-brawl like a normal fantasy PC, can he?"

Uh, I dunno, it was probably more about just hitting the tavern.

Now if this is what you're looking for, I've had plenty of those moments. For the mechanical part... No idea. I guess at the time there was just an expectation that we should act out what our characters might do in any random scene that came up in play. We just didn't know any other way of roleplaying. Yet sometimes it was more inspired than at other times, probably true to your "warming up" thesis.

In the DSA campaign, one factor may have been that the campaign was heavily railroaded, so the only way for us players to really contribute was through scenes like that.

- Frank

One technique I was introduced to by a GM, and have since used myself, is little character identification vignettes at the start of each session. The kind of thing you would see at the start of a TV series episode, where the characters and their actors are name-checked for the audience. Sometimes other characters have made little cameos in these scenes, and so they served to an extent as a kind of platform for expressing both character identity and the realtionships between the characters. Something along those lines might help - systematically calling for "character exposition" scenes from the players.

Hi Tony,

Yeah, the closing scene really was a good endcap in many ways. J was able to make a final statement about that character, as well as sort of close the book on addressing that premise.

The reason I pointed earlier to the scene framing/conflict/focus on character connection is that I think it is utterly necessary to get those prequel/endcap situations- because those situations are pure expressions of character. You need them to build emotional investment, and they only get payoff because you've built it up.

Technique-wise, I think Universalis, and pretty much any game that hits one the stuff I mentioned at first, makes it easier to do this- because players get the ability to set up those scenes and run them through. I think a lot of groups, though, without scene framing, pretty much go at it as long as possible, and hit those moments on random, as opposed to intentionally. The reason I mentioned the UA experience as a negative example is that, THAT is exactly how I see the rest of the campaign working- a few of those moments might appear, but because there is no real input on the part of the players to set things up that way, those moments are going to be by luck, and not design.

Chris

Yeah, I see the point (from, really, both Frank and Chris) that these scenes are meaningful only in structure with other scenes. They're the warm-up and integration, none of which makes sense without the action in the middle. If you aren't getting enough relevant action scenes, player-driven scene framing helps that.

Part of the thing about scene framing, however, is that it lends itself to aggressive scene framing. And aggressive scene framing (i.e. "skip the boring bits, go straight to the action") can, in the wrong hands... mine for instance... cause your game to consistently skip past the warm-up and integration phases, jumping from one scene of wholly conflicted action to the next. So, from the point of view of a game where players have no power, and it meanders endlessly without connnecting warm-up scenes to action... yeah, scene framing fixes much. From the point of view of a game where players are hugely empowered, and driving things from one peak of action to the next, it's probably part of the problem. Make sense?

So the cure would be scene-framing PLUS mechanical incentives to do warm-up/integration bits? Capes does this somewhat, as a Debt-management tactic; My Life With Master does this explicitly and massively -- you're desperate for those Overture scenes with your connections and will fight and claw to get them.

Tony, full ack on the part about aggressive scene-framing. What you describe is exactly what happened in my PtA game last weekend. We were pressing toward the action all the time and forgot about the characters.

One more thought: Could it be that part of the value of the scenes we talk about lies in the fact that they come unexpectedly? I mean, can you really plan a scene like that? I would suggest that the merit of those scenes is the momentum they develope all by themselves. They might even work best using actor stance and just seeing where they take you.

Hi Tony,

Right, that's why stuff like Universalis, Trollbabe, or anything where players are allowed to input on the scene framing allows those warm up/down bits to happen...

"So you guys end up at the warehouse..."
"Hold on, I want to do a prep scene, is that cool?"
"Ok, sure."

Chris

Sydney: Yes, but both reward subtly wrong things. Capes rewards peak after peak of action (yes, even in the "calm" debt-management scenes) with no warm-up or integration. MLwM rewards the warm-up and integration, but also rewards disconnecting it as much as possible from the action scenes. In short, when your Overture shows why a later high-tension scene is important to you, that's because you've gotten screwed. Which, yeah, is how the game works but doesn't encourage the players to drive things in that direction.

Anyway, my thoughts on systematic application of this idea are in my newest Misery Bubblegum thread.

Frank: Actually, I'd prefer that the scenes not happen unexpectedly, by accident. I'd sort of like to be able to have them reliably crop up where they're useful and needed. So I hope that their random appearance is just a result of nobody yet having techniques to control this, rather than a fundamental feature.

Chris: Yes, but... in Universalis (as in Capes) your ability to define a scene is a rare opportunity. You can spend it on something minor, or you can do something big that will earn you coins. I haven't played enough to speak with any certainty, but doesn't that dynamic discourage people from doing these sort of scenes, and encourage them to do the high-payout scenes instead?

Hi Tony,

In Universalis, it's really a matter of what CA the group is trying to run with it. For most of my play, I had pretty co-operative groups with challenges being pretty rare and a high focus on Nar play. One thing that slow scenes are really good for is setting up extra traits for a character. We usually play out a scene first and add traits at the end, with suggestions around the table. By the time a conflict kicks in, you've got a good feel for the parties involved.

But if you have a Gamist lean in there, yeah, people are just going to go for the wahoo conflicts to grab coins. Even still, if you win the conflict you get a chance to narrate how it all comes out and spend those coins- allowing you to provide follow-up scenes. J's narration was a close-out of the fight conflict.

Chris

I hope this is on-topic . . .

I heard an interview with the writers?/producers? of the TV show House a week or so back. Dr. House, for those of you unfamiliar with the show (I'm enjoyin' the hell out of it, but maybe that's just me), is a sharp-tounged, sarcastic, cynical, people-hatin', medical-diagnosis genius. Interestingly, the folks in the interview mentioned that the most important (and sometimes the most difficult) thing they do when writing an episode is to NOT write any of his (numerous and excellent) jokes, cutting remarks, or etc. until they are sure they've got the dramatic elements of the ep in place. First get happy with the pacing, the emotional impact, the conflicts - make that work. Then add the "personality." The moments outside of conflict that are in some ways more amusing, revelatory and/or touching than the conflicts themselves.

So what I'm thinking is - those moments Tony is talking about about are only possible when the context in which they are set already "works." That the key to having that moment with Harper was knowing just where that scene fit, in terms of both the character's personality and the current overall progression of the story (or, I guess, game, situation, - whatever's key to the CA at hand).

I would point to the PTA (damn, what's the proper term? Must . . . find . . . book . . . ) character screen-time progression as a key enabling mechanic for that. At the risk of over-using a game example, I think I both experienced and saw this occur in the Moose in the City game. With my character, it was realizing that issue was building but not nearing resolution that led me to interact with the Mooses' conflict the way I did - which told me more about my character than it did about that conflict.

Anything that provides meaningful context would seem to be a big help here, be it mechanics or just good communication. At least, that's the most sophisticated (ha!) analysis I've got so far,

Gordon

Gordon: Absolutely. It's a structure that requires both elements, and not simply in the right proportions but in the right relations with each other. Too much action and you lose much of the opportunity to see the situation as unique to these characters. Too much character contemplation and you lose the ability to see these characters as important to a meaningful situation. When the whole thing comes together in the right structure, it rocks.

The thing to bear in mind (at least from my point of view) is that you don't have to plan in advance for everything to follow a plan in play.

Say you want three conflicts (A, B and C) in a session, two of which are just side-lines, one of which is the big thing. Do you need to decide which one is the Big Thing in advance? Certainly not. You run all three conflicts, in a system that guarantees that two of them will be resolved quickly, while one of them naturally (perhaps because of the side-effects of the other two resolving) grows and takes on greater significance before it resolves. Then the players, in every action they take, create and choose the structure of the story.

I'm pretty sure that the same thing can be done with scene choice... given the right structure, players will create an arc of story importance for themselves, without having to know it in advance. Which is fun, of course, because it means you don't have to plan it... which in turn means that the same mechanism can apply at every level of the game, to all the innumerable sub-plots and story-threads that people barely register consciously.

I'm not sure you can make it work perfectly all the time. Sometimes you don't know you're going to want build up until too late.

I've got an example from my own experience, a time when it didn't work. I've got examples from when was all great, but a failure might be an interesting contrast.

My PC had a mystical experience that involved her making a choice between a number of symbolised options. She didn't make up her mind until too late, a choice in herself. As a direct result she got sicced with a demon hunting her as an embodiment of her indecision.

Later on in the campaign, after some growth of the character, she had the opportunity to go through the same mystical experience which was pretty certain to end in a confrontation with this demon. I was so excited. I wanted to go through the same symbolised range of choices and react very differently this time. Have the lead up and the moment of seeing these choices between various dichotomies within herself, and of it all being really neat because of what had gone before and what we all knew was to come. Instead, boom "ok, you come face to face with the demon, it's the same one as before, you attack, you swing your sword, you kill it, yay you've succeeded in your goal." It really felt like a lost opportunity.

Why not just say that if you haven't built up the issue to the extent you want it then it can't be time to resolve it yet? That seems to be the answer to your second, disappointing encounter with the mystic symbols in a nutshell, doesn't it?

TonyLB wrote: Why not just say that if you haven't built up the issue to the extent you want it then it can't be time to resolve it yet? That seems to be the answer to your second, disappointing encounter with the mystic symbols in a nutshell, doesn't it?

Heya Tony,

It sounds like your using the straightforwardness of a cliche, so you can disengage from the first person and instead watch your character from first person.

Since it's a cliche, the character is just going to run down a very straightforward track. This doesn't require your mind to really be thinking at all...you can roleplay him without thinking here, like you can walk on flat ground without thinking about it.

This leaves you to just watch him being played out. Me thinks that's enjoying simulationism, but that's a side point. Basically instead of the normal rough ground of roleplaying where you have to think, you've engaged a cliche, a smooth bit of ground. Probably what happens normally is you think 'Oh, smooth ground, boring! Lets race on to the interesting rough ground!'.

Or not?