My focus here is on the construction of literary character, and my general argument is that characterization is achieved not through a “pinning down” process but rather through a process that opens up and releases mysteries of the human spirit. The object is not to “solve” a character—to expose some hidden secret—but instead to deepen and enlarge the riddle itself.

O’Brien, Tim. The Magic Show. Writers On Writing. NH: 1991, University Press of New England. 182.



I found the above quote of particular interest in light of finishing Ron’s Simulationism essay last night. Sometimes I wonder how many games expect us to develop our character (especially during character generation) so completely that we leave out any mystery. We simply play the predefined and created role, but in doing so I think that we sometimes shut out possibilities for character exploration. I suppose that in some games, that’s the point. Of course the above quote was also taken from a book on writing fiction. I realize the differences between the two hobbies, but I still believe the technique of opening up characters instead of “pinning them down” is useful in certain sorts of games; and particularly compatible with certain modes of GNS decision making. What do you think?

This is completely in line with some of my research, and also with the stuff Egri was writing about: Conflict serves as a catalyst to reveal or express character.

This is one of the reasons that player narrative power has become a big thing in Nar games, simply because the ability to define your character in play is all about being able to define how you respond to conflicts, and what sort of conflicts are going to arise for your character. This isn't the only way(see Trollbabe for a good example), but its one of the simplest ways to help players establish that communication with each other of "This is what my story is about, and here's my character".

The conflicts you encounter and how your character responds define the premise and the character.

Chris