Awhile ago on the RPG.net forum there was a thread on situation and characters by Valamir. It was a rant, but the focus was the players supplying the situations that they as players would be excited to experience their character go through. This is some additional ideas to compliment that (I'm not trying to conflict with it). I'm posting here instead of on RPG.net because basically I don't feel up to the jostle over there at the moment. :)

I'd like to talk about something else that was very likely the foremost attractant for us when we started the hobby. Let's call them 'primal situations'. Remember the last time in real life that you found money in the street? Bit of a thrill, wasn't it? Do you vaguely remember the first time you picked up a twelve gold pieces in game? What about the last time you were in a bit of a dodgey/threatening situation in real life? A little bit disturbing, a little bit thrilling? What was it like with the first band of orcs your character faced in game?

Game situations like these are often quickly dismissed as cheap thrills. However, these aren't just thrilling, they did let early players examine their character. Because in real life, when we go through hard times it makes us stop sometimes and examine what's important to us, while good times tend to make us celebrate the person we are, the person that gets good times like these. It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that it's just the player enjoying getting the gold and the kills as he pushes his pawn around. However, when we start playing the characters we run are usually quite radically different from our real life selves. In fact, if you want to be a looting and plundering machine, one has to understand the characters properties and nature. If they do (or even if they don't use an understanding of their PC) the difference between PC and player creates interference that prevents kills and loot being directly attributable to the player (as if they were tokens he'd collected). The 18 strength PC got those, and the player can only imagine himself as 15 strength at best (yeah, right!), for example. At a purely mechanical level, he just doesn't relate to the PC enough to decide these acquired loot/kill tokens are something he himself earned.

Then we have the primal situation level. The player can relate to finding money/stuff or the fears and thrill of conflict. He can relate to these primal situations the PC is going through. In fact, because he was making the decisions, he feels even closer to the event. Since he's relating to it, but not attributing it to himself because of how different he is at the mechanical level, he's pressed away from thinking about himself. He's actually pushed toward relating to, thinking about and feeling the life of that PC, that role (I mention the life of that PC first, because it’s at a primal level that he relates in this example). Somewhat like when we watch a movie and we get really worried about a character in it and in getting worried, we forget our own existence for awhile. Add decision making for that character and it's an even more intimate sympathy.

Basic, sympathetic resonance with the role this way is most likely the strongest hook has for new people coming to the hobby. Sadly though, IMO as we go forward, we go backward. Eventually we reach for richer stories than the dungeon crawl, but in doing so fundamentals like primal situation tend to be shunned. But how can you care about your role in more complex situations, when you don't care about the fundamentals. If you fail to appreciate a single apple, can you really appreciate a feast?

Sadly though, primal situations just don't lend themselves to communication though. Each individual tends to savour the moments feelings alone, these moments don't lend themselves to sharing as they tend to be so simple they're hard to put into words, for a start. It'd also be hard to make it sound interesting to others at the table as well, since the moments are about each characters self. But in the end, with the combat section taking up a fair chunk of many RPG's, what I'm calling use of primal situation is pretty important to the hobby.

Nothing terribly controversial here to say, just recent musings.

It was kind of poor of me not to link to Valamirs post, here it is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88152&perpage=10&pagenumber=1

A really interesting concept. I don't know that I have anything to add at this point, but I hope some folks do, because I think there's a good discussion waiting to happen here.

Like Valamir, I feel like there is a good discussion waiting here too, but I'm not sure what to say about it, so I'll start with an example from actual play.

The story I'm involved in currently is titled "Transgression". It's about what you will do "wrong" for the greater "good" -- the quoted terms being intentionally left up for interpretation by the players and characters to an extent. All of the characters are either a part of or otherwise involved in a certain street gang that has organized to help people who are living on the street get along. Their usual crime consists of what they need to do to get along, not the kind of stuff that gets on the news.

However, in our story we're pushing the characters to newer heights of crime. In a recent session the character who is the acting authority around the gang right now had a turncoat member murdered (essentially executed) to protect the rest of the gang. When she made the order, pretty much everyone in the group was like, "whoa," and later one of the players (interestingly not the player of that character) commented to me that the moment was "gut wrenching."

That seems like a primal situation to me.

--Dave

I'd actually say that's sitution and primal situation at the same time. Combining deep questions of concience with 'oh my god, death!'. That's more the ideal combination of two elements.

I hope its still interesting when I say I was talking more about just the basics, just the 'oh my god, death' type feelings. The sort of stuff that also hooks alot of us when we began playing in our youth.

Here's a couple of things that need discussing: How the hell do you make 'oh my god, death' get communcated around the table in an interesting way. How do you express what you feel from the primal sympathy, without sounding boring or hogging game time eg, 'I was scared' or 'Jimbo felt fear up and down his spine...for the eighth time this combat, next round he'll feel...'.

Another is: GM's, do they loose touch with the basics? If you GM for awhile, you can forget to support the basics and try and instead present sophisticated story. IMO, when players don't feel much from the basics, they wont feel much from what is above that.

Hi Callan,

I'd offer that simply the doing of an action, the making the choice, as in Dave's example, is all that's needed. No need to explicate or ruminate.

Now, I'm coming from the tradition of dramatic narrative and oral storytelling -- and lots of folks come to these disucssions referencing novels... I'm beginning to suspect that these two models provide really different expectations of how to "relate" events and feelings. A novel often does explicate and ruminate. Dramatic narrative and epic poetry punches the viewer or listener in the gut and gets on with it. That's what I'd recomend.

I'm working on a screenplay now, and for some reason all these discussion about Narrativism on these boards are helping me really respect stripping away all the intellectualizing traps I've fallen into in recent years. I'm heading toward something pretty "primal" and immediate. I'd offer that it's right there in front of us in RPGs, too. If the GM frames scenes with choices presented to the players, the players, being human beings, are going to be driven to making compelling choices that smack us in the gut. We wait on the edge of our seats for those moments -- and wham -- either relieved or kicked, we have an immediate response.

That's why I don't trust all the machinations GMs put into the "world," the "clever twists," the "Mr. Johnsons" waiting to betray them, the secret beneath the secret. I understand the impulse: it's an honest one, I think, trying to capture exactly the idea that you've brought up. But it removes these surprises, twists and decisions from the main characters, for fear the players won't deliver. So the GM provides a swirl of craziness around the PCs, and the players are left simply trying to figure out what's going on.

But -- when we go to a movie we're not trying to figure out what's going on; we're watching what's happening -- right now, right in front of us. We're either getting relief or kicked in the gut as the main characters make decisions. That's exactly the response Dave's players had to the decision the player made for the gang leader. That's where the meat is. With the main characters, who are controlled by the characters, because those are the people we're identifying with and we have to ask, "You're really going to do that?"

Best,
Christopher

I think a lot of this has to do simply with player power. That is, if the player knows that it was they, more or less, who caused the primal thing to happen, then they feel a connection to the action. If they're manipulated into the action (or worse, forced into a decision), these things don't connect as much with the player.

I love twists and turns. And I don't think that they're problematic. As long as the player gets the power to affect those elements that they're interested in effecting on a regular basis, I think all is well. The power of picking up those coins is, not so much that it's a primal act, IMO, but that the primal nature of the act makes it obvious that the player is empowered. D&D was great for that. If the character killed the monster, then the player had killed the monster, and could be proud of that. In CoC, if the player was lead by twists to discover the ritual needed to send the beastie back to the other side, then it wasn't really the player who was responsible, and the ritual lacks punch with the player.

Yes, the two forms, Novels and RPGs have a very serious difference. RPGs can allow the player to have an actual impact on the virtual world. As such, that's the attraction of the media. Take that away, and it becomes just a bad novel. Players must have power where they want it.

Mike

There's something subtle here that I think Callan used to frame the dicussion to from the beginning, but I have only teased out over the last couple days. Correct me if this is not what you meant, Callan.

Primal Situation: a situation to which a character feels a sort of "adrenaline rush" response.
Primal Sympathy: a feeling produced in the player when roleplaying that situation. Primal Sympathy includes the assumption that the character and player are feeling similar things.

To clarify, I think a couple more terms are useful.

Primal Feeling: the feeling that the character has duing the Primal Situation. Notably, this does not exist except through a decision by the player (implicit or explicit).
Primal Effect: an "adrenaline rush" response in a player to a roleplayed situation. This situation may or may not be a Primal Situation, depending on the presence of a Primal Feeling as decided by a player.

Callan, you asked how to communicate Primal Sympathy within the group, but I think the real question is how to communicate Primal Feeling. Primal Feeling is a feeling of the character, and thus can become part of the Shared Imagined Space through narration. In fact, in terms of the SIS, the Primal Feeling does not actually exist until it is narrated. Primal Sympathy, on the other hand, is a feeling of the player. Communication of it might be interesting for the other players, but it is not part of the SIS. Primal Effect is in the same boat in this regard.

However, a player may decide that a character has a Primal Feeling and narrate it without any Primal Sympathy or Primal Effect. Secondly, a player may have a Primal Effect in response to a situation and only then decide the character has a similiar feeling -- creating a Primal Feeling and Situation. Conversely, a player may have a Primal Effect and do nothing with it in terms of the character.

To put this model to use, I'll examine the example I gave before in these terms, and perhaps to clarify the situation.

1) Player A (of gang leader) feels Primal Effect in response to being betrayed by NPC.
2) Player A decides what gang leader will do, but never formally constructs a Primal Feeling for the character, let alone narrating it.
3) Player A announces a scene, then has character give order for execution.
4) Other Players (and GM) have Primal Effect in response to this scene, but other PCs are not present, so there is no chance for this to become Primal Sympathy at this point.

Does this breakdown reflect what you were getting at, Callan? And if so, I would like to re-ask your original question: How can we effectively narrate Primal Feeling and keep the game interesting? Furthermore, what role, if any, do Primal Sympathy and Primal Effect play in this narration?

(BTW: Mike, I agree that player power is involved here, but this post is thick enough already)

Christopher Kubasik: I'm not sure that choices narrates basic feelings. For example, someone chooses to pick up 12 gold. We might think 'oh, he's feeling good'. But is he? One PC might be reflecting on how much a sisters eyes cost to restore and that it shouldn't be so, the simple feeling is resentment. A cleric might be feel he's grubbing around like those he warns against in his sermons, the simple feeling is contempt. The decision to pick up 12 gold isn't examined simply by observing 12 gold being picked up.

It's possible to design decisions so that the thoughts behind them can be examined. However, I want to examine primal situations that make up more of a PC's 'life'. Finding out you just killed your half brother is more important than picking up 12 gold, yes, but picking up gold happens a lot more often than that sort of thing and makes him appreciate more such strong feelings when they arrive, as the simpler ones form a foundation.

Mike Holmes: Although player power is important here, and interruption of player power can gut this, it isn't really what I'm talking about. It's somewhat about the players forgetting about themselves and instead sympathising with their PC's feelings. In discussing something where people forget that they are players, power the player holds isn't really part of the discussion, as our examples are about people who have mostly forgotten this level of their existence for the moment.

qxjit/Dave: I'm not sure I like primal situation described as adrenalin rush, personally, since it sort of associates it with a narrow range of thrill seeker emotions. Sadness, betrayal and happiness and a range of others can be felt simply and strongly too. I'm afraid using it will narrow the discussion too much. :)

I'll put bluntly what I think, IMO, Valamir's use of situation was. Situation is a tool to help us examine character. I think it sort of prises out of a character what would otherwise remain hidden (once prised out, it can be narrated or whatever).

Likewise, primal situation helps us examine primal character traits, prising them out.

On other, expanded terms you've added:
Primal sympathy: Imagine you see the hero in the movie get his hand pressed flat against a very hot, hot plate. Do you wince, with him? Latter he gets it on with a sexxxy lady. Do think 'yeah, that's where its at!' or some such? I think we'd all wince and a lot of us would think something when a hero we like gets the girl. The hot plate is the best example of sympathising so much we forget about ourselves. This is basically what your saying, but I want to underline how simple, and thus how intimate a connection this sympathy can create.

Primal Feeling: I think some of the idea is that you don't think about what you feel so much as you just feel it as your PC. Stuff like Orc's running at your PC starts triggering your own, RL fight or flight mechanisms. Seeing gold to pick up sets off hunt and gather mechanisms. The dungeon crawl sucks us in, because whether we like it or not, parts of our brain just love to get excited over this stuff. Well, unless we decide to get jaded. You said this already, really, but I just wanted to add my bit! ;)

Primal Effect: I think you were trying to differentiate primal feeling and effect as in one happens in the PC (at the players decision) and the other happens to the player as a reaction to the PC's situation. Now, you can separate the two to examine them. BUT, I'd say it's more important that we recognise, IMO, in parts of our mind when playing, we tend to FAIL to separate them! Character situation, our situation, THE SAME. Fight or flight mechanisms just aren't terribly bright, they just want to react. The hero on the screen touching a hotplate is our wince, our characters 'oh my god!' when orcs charge is our own 'oh my god!'. It's getting into character at a very primal level. Actually, not 'getting' into character, being forced too, as our basic instincts are triggered and sort of tricked. Although there is almost always enough differences between PC and player that separating them into two types of stuff, they come from one core, IMO.

As for how to convey sympathy, yeah your right, that isn't the right thing to convey. The other players don't really need to know I sympathise with my PC. How I sympathise, yes, that I sympathise, no. If we do want to separate primal feeling and effect (primal PC feeling, primal player effect), I don't think primal player effect is important to narrate around the table (though talking about it after the game might be damn interesting!), as with the hot plate example it tends to be described at step onward, eg 'Oh, that would have hurt his hand a lot' rather than 'Oh christ, my hand hurts!'. Then again, mebe the former is good if you want to third party narrate your PC's feelings.

Ok, so we're pretty much on the same page. I agree that "adrenaline rush" is much to narrow to encompass the situations that fall under "primal." You're absolutely right that many players tend not to conciously separate their own feelings from their character's, but I also think it's important to realize that they can. The degree to which this happens varies from game to game and from player to player. If I'm playing a beer and pretzels RPG, I might end up laughing my ass off while my character is fleeing with brown shorts. How much player/character feelings coincide is probably correlated with immersion.

Now, to the question! How to narrate these feelings?

First of all, some players may not be interesting in narrating or listening to others narrate these things at all, and that's prefectly fine. But, assuming that narration is desired, there are quite a few ways to get it into the game without losing interest. I encourage players to soliloquy (voice over) their character's feelings from time to time. Along the same lines, a monologue or dialogue with another character can also get the feelings out on the table, and presents an opportunity for other characters to react and/or share their own feelings. Anything the character does to express their feelings can be used to narrate. Does your character write poetry? Read some! Does he paint? Find some images on the net to show as his latest work (or make your own)! Pretty much anything that is framed from within the game is more interesting to me than simply stating what the character is feeling.

Mike Holmes: Although player power is important here, and interruption of player power can gut this, it isn't really what I'm talking about. It's somewhat about the players forgetting about themselves and instead sympathising with their PC's feelings. In discussing something where people forget that they are players, power the player holds isn't really part of the discussion, as our examples are about people who have mostly forgotten this level of their existence for the moment.

Whoop! Whoop! Jargon alert!

To follow up on Mike's post, what we're talking about is protagonism. See my post in The essential conflict if you are bedazzled and fascinated.

Otherwise, click on your jargon-shields and continue.

Best,
Ron

qxjit wrote: Ok, so we're pretty much on the same page. I agree that "adrenaline rush" is much to narrow to encompass the situations that fall under "primal." You're absolutely right that many players tend not to conciously separate their own feelings from their character's, but I also think it's important to realize that they can.

The degree to which this happens varies from game to game and from player to player. If I'm playing a beer and pretzels RPG, I might end up laughing my ass off while my character is fleeing with brown shorts. How much player/character feelings coincide is probably correlated with immersion.

Now, to the question! How to narrate these feelings?

First of all, some players may not be interesting in narrating or listening to others narrate these things at all, and that's prefectly fine. But, assuming that narration is desired, there are quite a few ways to get it into the game without losing interest. I encourage players to soliloquy (voice over) their character's feelings from time to time. Along the same lines, a monologue or dialogue with another character can also get the feelings out on the table, and presents an opportunity for other characters to react and/or share their own feelings. Anything the character does to express their feelings can be used to narrate. Does your character write poetry? Read some! Does he paint? Find some images on the net to show as his latest work (or make your own)! Pretty much anything that is framed from within the game is more interesting to me than simply stating what the character is feeling.

After each round, the GM chooses one player and asks them to describe how their PC felt about an event, in one sentence. On each round the GM keeps choosing one person until everyones been chosen once, then he can choose anyone again, etc etc.

qxjit wrote:

After each round, the GM chooses one player and asks them to describe how their PC felt about an event, in one sentence. On each round the GM keeps choosing one person until everyones been chosen once, then he can choose anyone again, etc etc.

I have to admit that when I first thought about narrating character feelings during combat I thought it might be best left until afterwards, handled the same techniques as other situations, but this sounds like a LOT of fun. I would most enjoy it with the emphasis put on short and fast expressions of emotions -- so that the narration there would feel as urgent as the combat. Have you actually tried this, and if so, what were the results?

Another idea I thought of was to narrate a character's feeling through environmental effects. The character is angry, so a thunderstorm comes up and such things. Or it's cold when a character is depressed. This could obviously be used together with another technique to enhance the impact.

I haven't formulated these ideas into much of a system other than suggesting the ideas to players and encouraging them, but it might be interesting to try.

Okay, so I tried it yesterday. I think it did give more insight to each character so I'll be using it in future. Asking about feeling before the PC's put their plan into action was almost like a chance for them to forshadow thing in a way, too. I think it added a lot to a game which was essentially a one shot where people wouldn't otherwise express much about their characters. But I think some changes are due.

The sub optimal thing: One of the players was pursuing the suboptimal bonus for the bonus only. I feel in the long run that'll mean he would be placing feelings on his character that really don't mesh with what he wants. So he's gamist desire and PC narrative desire would end up clashing. I think I'll just use an honesty system instead. I'll ask 'Is what you said really important to your PC?' and if they say yes they get the bonus. If they abuse it, they'll be abusing their own character concept by saying things which aren't important to them are. Well, it'll sort of police itself.

XP: Although I asked a few times, it wasn't as often as I expected. The XP amount wasn't all that much, one player commented, and still felt that way after I explained its for the minimal effort of expressing what you should already know is in your PC's head. Anyway, I bumped up the XP.

Be careful, Callan!: Duh, I did this twice, instead of one at a time I just asked both players (yeah, small group yesterday) what their PC felt. Must knock into my own head, do it one at a time. Otherwise they both go to speak at the same time and it sort of squelches the quieter ones portrayal.

Cool, I'm glad to hear it worked out well over all. I'm considering trying this in an upcoming short game, though I'll probably give bonus dice instead of XP. I do think that the honesty system is a bit better that favoring suboptimal feelings, though I'm inclined to assume that players want to express what their character is really feeling anyway. As long as you don't penalize them for the fear (or whatever) they just narrated of course.

qxjit wrote: Cool, I'm glad to hear it worked out well over all. I'm considering trying this in an upcoming short game, though I'll probably give bonus dice instead of XP. I do think that the honesty system is a bit better that favoring suboptimal feelings, though I'm inclined to assume that players want to express what their character is really feeling anyway. As long as you don't penalize them for the fear (or whatever) they just narrated of course.