Ron Edwards in GNS and other Matters of Roleplaying Theory wrote: Character: a fictional person or entity.

Jack,

In a word, yes! Although I would disagree with your statement that Bond is a multi-dimensional character. A character that is described *only* by Characterization is flat - almost by definition, given your terms. In order for a character to not be flat, Deep Character must be observed.

Paganini wrote: Although I would disagree with your statement that Bond is a multi-dimensional character. A character that is described *only* by Characterization is flat - almost by definition, given your terms.

No, I still disagree.

I think you can develop characters with "deep character", and crush them against these kinds of issues and conflicts, and still do simulationist exploration of character. You can even do gamist exploration of character in such situations, although it's a bit tougher--but think of Spiderman, when he had to choose between the carload of kids and the girl of his dreams. Jack wants that choice to be a proof of moral character, and it is; but in Spiderman's case, he didn't think, "which of these should I save". He revealed his moral character by stepping up to the plate and saying, "how can I save both of them?"

--M. J. Young

M.J., I'm not seeing a problem here. How is the Spiderman example not still Deep Characterization?

Hi M.J.,

I'm with Nathan on this one. The issue has very little, probably nothing whatever, to do with whether the character "thinks about" his or her decision. What matters is what he or she does.

In fact, Spider-Man is probably the poster child of comics characters whose 1960s storylines emphasized the kind of pressure that Jack is talking about.

And Jack, here's my call: "deep" terminology or not, what you're describing in my terminology is already accounted for - Character-based Premise, as described in both of the relevant essays.

Best,
Ron

Paganini wrote: M.J., I'm not seeing a problem here. How is the Spiderman example not still Deep Characterization?

I do so hate to come across as a complete idiot, but is the vasic argument running through this thread that Deep Character cannot be explored in Sim?

I believe, like the falacy that shown with the internal causality being the sole province of Sim that the notion that Deep Character as the sole province of Nar will also be shown as a falacy.

There is absolutely nothing in Sim that prevents Deep Character from being explored. I do, however, agree with the basic idea that Narrativism prioritizes Deep Character Exploration. The advantage of Nar is that Deep Character Exploration is built right into the system. But that only makes Nar a convenient to do so, not the only place to do so.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

M. J. Young wrote: No, I still disagree.

I think you can develop characters with "deep character", and crush them against these kinds of issues and conflicts, and still do simulationist exploration of character. You can even do gamist exploration of character in such situations, although it's a bit tougher--but think of Spiderman, when he had to choose between the carload of kids and the girl of his dreams. Jack wants that choice to be a proof of moral character, and it is; but in Spiderman's case, he didn't think, "which of these should I save". He revealed his moral character by stepping up to the plate and saying, "how can I save both of them?"

--M. J. Young

Silmenume wrote: I do so hate to come across as a complete idiot, but is the vasic argument running through this thread that Deep Character cannot be explored in Sim?

Jack Spencer Jr. wrote: Furthermore, as the character continues to make these decisions, revealing deep character and steering the flow of events, a deeper meaning is built, a universal human truth that applies to how we live our lives. This is sometimes called a premise.

talysman wrote:

Paganini wrote: M.J., I'm not seeing a problem here. How is the Spiderman example not still Deep Characterization?

he's saying it *is* Deep Characterization, but it's Gamist, not Narrativist. because the player's decision is how to get the best outcome (save both) rather than play out a moral choice.

Caldis, close, but not quite.

Caldis wrote:

Jack Spencer Jr. wrote: Furthermore, as the character continues to make these decisions, revealing deep character and steering the flow of events, a deeper meaning is built, a universal human truth that applies to how we live our lives. This is sometimes called a premise.

So if you explore these deep questions about human nature you are creating a premise, and if you are free to make any choice about that premise you are addressing it and the game has turned narrativist. By giving the player the power to decide what happens his own beliefs and spin on the situation comes into the picture making in inherently his own comment.

Caldis wrote:
The simulationist approach to such a situation where it came down to choice would be to have a mechanism in play to determine what the character does, something that keeps the players beliefs and interpretation of the events out of the way as much as possible. The player should have no more choice in the outcome than they do when entering combat. So in the Spiderman example he would be rated on different values, Love girlfriend 5, protect innocent 6, and then the dice would be consulted to see what he does.

Hello,

Those are all excellent points, Nathan.

Pendragon offers a good example of facilitating rather strong thematic characters while maintaining, in my view, a commitment to Simulationist play.

What makes it especially relevant to this thread is that, in Pendragon, you have the choice when faced with a difficult of decision of (a) simply rolling vs. the character's personality trait to see what he or she does, and (b) choosing what he or she does, but checking the trait that you're invoking, which contributes to changing your trait scores.

Best,
Ron

The character vs characterization was one of the things that struck me most from Story. It's one of the few bits I remember with any clarity (my memory is that I liked it a great deal, but was rather disappointed by McKee's actual screenwriting credits).

My memory of McKee's text vis Deep Character is that it focusses on precisely those moments that would underscore narrativist Premise. They are the crunch moments when a character's ethics would be tested. McKee also - and I'm aware how shaky my reminiscence might be here - also asserted that essentially Deep Character is defined by when a character would betray themselves. You're a honest cop who'd never take a bribe - Deep Character is really revealed by the moment when you'd bend the rules.

Ron, this ties in with stuff you've said in the past about in narrativist play the expectation is that the Paladin would break his code - and the interest of the group is in the moment when.

Perhaps Jack can back up my rather vague memories with some actual textual citations from McKee?

Hi, Ian.

My memory of McKee's text vis Deep Character is that it focusses on precisely those moments that would underscore narrativist Premise. They are the crunch moments when a character's ethics would be tested.

McKee...also asserted that essentially Deep Character is defined by when a character would betray themselves. You're a honest cop who'd never take a bribe - Deep Character is really revealed by the moment when you'd bend the rules.

Paganini wrote: Not exactly. What you say is true, in that these are requirements for Narrativism. But more than that, it's not Narrativism unless the players themselves are choosing to address the Premise because it is somehow important or interesting to them as people. This is the Story Now part of the picture. Without Story Now you've just got thematic Sim (or Gam).

Ron Edwards wrote: And Jack, here's my call: "deep" terminology or not, what you're describing in my terminology is already accounted for - Character-based Premise, as described in both of the relevant essays.

• A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?

• Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

Premise is a question that has an A or B response, yes or no. The implications of the answer can be found in the question itself. Such a question cannot be effectively posed until placed in a situation. Here’s the deal. Once placed in a situation, how the premise got there looks no different from any GNS perspective, it is just a difficult situation. How the player responds is important as his behavior implies motivation (CA). If the player sticks to the A/B parameters of the implied question in the situation then he is purposefully addressing the implied question – he has an interest in it. He is addressing the premise question that was built into the situation/conflict.

A Simulationist would not be interested in the A/B response only but seeks to the deal with the conflict in the situation in a way that best reflects his character. In other words the Sim player is not interested in the question, and thus ignores it by not answering yes or no but instead focuses on resolving the situation in a manner that best reflects the Deep Character of his character.

Both responses reflect a Deep Character revealing choice that became possible because of a difficult situation that required a decision. The same could be said of Gamist play.

The point is that Creative Agenda only says what we want to get out of play, not what must or can happen in play. Deep Character Exploration is not CA specific. However Deep Character Exploration is prioritized in Nar.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

edited - some serious grammatical problems - sheeeesh!

Paganini wrote:

Not exactly. What you say is true, in that these are requirements for Narrativism. But more than that, it's not Narrativism unless the players themselves are choosing to address the Premise because it is somehow important or interesting to them as people. This is the Story Now part of the picture. Without Story Now you've just got thematic Sim (or Gam).

Yes, I'm saying that exploration of character, even deep character, can happen in gamist-prioritized play.

Jack threw up the example of the man forced to choose between saving his wife and saving his daughter; he said that pressures like this reveal "deep character". Granted. He further said that they are always narrativism in action, that in fact they are definitive of narrativism.

I say that they are not; that what he is calling "deep character" may be part of simulationist or even gamist play.

I don't think the spiderman example is substantially unlike his example; now we're going to turn it into game play. The movie doesn't exist; none of us have seen it. Rather, I am playing Spiderman. The Green Goblin throws this problem at me: am I going to save Mary Jane, or the kids?

Now, it looks like I have a moral question with only two answers; that's what the Green Goblin wants me to think. That's probably what the referee wants me to think. I'm supposed to be asking myself, which one will I save? (Like the audience in the movie, that was the question going through most minds, I'd wager.)

I recognize, however, that these are not the only choices. I could

• Abandon the kids and save Mary Jane;• Sacrifice Mary Jane to save the kids;• Sacrifice both of them for the chance to get the Green Goblin;• Do nothing at all;• Risk losing everyone by trying to save them all.


That is not less a moral choice on my character's part, certainly. Indeed, whatever he chooses is going to reflect what Jack is calling "deep character". However, as a player, what now goes through my head is that I can do this--I can end run the referee's clever little plot and save everyone. It's risky, and I might fail, but I think that the odds are good enough that I can save them all. I'm going to step up to this challenge and prove that I'm good enough to do this.

I have indeed examined and revealed the deep character of my character Spiderman: he takes the risk that he might lose everyone in the hope that he might save everyone. At the same time, while I'm doing this exploration of character by revealing his deep character, I am playing gamist. I'm trying to beat the referee's clever little problem and prove that I can outplay the challenge.

If I succeed, everyone cheers, because I did it. This is thoroughly gamist play, despite the fact that deep character is part of what has just been explored.

By contrast, I could have decided that Mary Jane and the kids were reasonable losses if I could get the Green Goblin, and gone for him, let the innocents fall, and nailed the Goblin. That, too, would be gamist play, and it also would have been an exploration of character which revealed deep character--it would have made the statement that my version of Spiderman will sacrifice innocents, even those dear to him, to get the villain.

Jack wants to say that you can't explore deep character without prioritizing narrativism. I'm quite happy to admit that such exploration of deep character is most commonly narrativist; I'm not willing to say that it's never gamist nor simulationist.

--M. J. Young

Caldis wrote: Yet how can this be when the premise is not necessarily known? How does someone choose to focus on something that doesnt necessarily exist at this point, nor is it formally verbalized at any point.

Jack threw up the example of the man forced to choose between saving his wife and saving his daughter; he said that pressures like this reveal "deep character". Granted. He further said that they are always narrativism in action, that in fact they are definitive of narrativism

Paganini wrote:

Caldis wrote:
The simulationist approach to such a situation where it came down to choice would be to have a mechanism in play to determine what the character does, something that keeps the players beliefs and interpretation of the events out of the way as much as possible.

This is way off. Creative Agendas are about real people, not Technique. The players might very well be able to make the choice in a Sim game. In fact, lots of people play freeform Sim in just this way. They make decisions based on *what is plausible* given the Exploratory context. "What would my guy do? How would the environment behave? What would happen here?" The Premise / Theme may still be interesting to the players, but they don't have the same emotional investment in how it turns out. It's interesting for it's own sake, and should turn out the way it *would* turn out.

What makes it especially relevant to this thread is that, in Pendragon, you have the choice when faced with a difficult of decision of (a) simply rolling vs. the character's personality trait to see what he or she does, and (b) choosing what he or she does, but checking the trait that you're invoking, which contributes to changing your trait scores.

Hi Caldis,

No, Story Now is not a Technique. It is a Creative Agenda, which is to say a social and creative priority. It is synonymous with Narrativism.

One of the Creative Agendas = Narrativism = Story Now.

Also, my claim about Pendragon is that both of the techniques available to the player are consistent with the immensely sophisticated Simulationist thrust of this game.

Best,
Ron

M. J. Young wrote: I'm quite happy to admit that such exploration of deep character is most commonly narrativist; I'm not willing to say that it's never gamist nor simulationist.

Silmenume wrote: A Simulationist would not be interested in the A/B response only but seeks to the deal with the conflict in the situation in a way that best reflects his character. In other words the Sim player is not interested in the question, and thus ignores it by not answering yes or no but instead focuses on resolving the situation in a manner that best reflects the Deep Character of his character.

Ron Edwards wrote: 3. Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a complete red herring. People daily address Premise without self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing Narrativist. Laws' term "conscious" and my "mindful" only refer to the attention to and social reinforcement of the process - not to self-analytical or abstract discussion about the content.

I actually think that sticking to the A/B response is a defining characteristic action of Narrativist play.

How the premise question is put into play shades the answer, and the question can be asked many different way thus creating greater subtly to the theme, but in a given moment of premise question crises, the player if he wishes to address premise as a goal, must choose from the yes or no (or A/B) choices given to him in the question.

Ron Edwards wrote: Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?
Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others?
Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

Silmenume wrote: The Green Goblin throws this problem at me: am I going to save Mary Jane, or the kids?

I think a more premise like form of the above would be –

Is the life of one worth more than the life of many?

I'll buy your take on the whole Spiderman movie topic, but it was something of a sidetrack. I discounted the example given because it was a situation, not a premise question. Again I assert that all premise questions are yes/no (A/B) situations. That is part of the nature of the premise question in a Narrativist game, a very difficult situation that must be answered in the two options implicitly allowed, though more solutions may be possible.

In Narrativism, as I understand it, the important thing is the question. So important that the players will willingly forego better solutions, if they are available, to stick to the two implicit solutions so as to answer the question. Even if this violates character integrity. Obviously I think most Nar games would structure their elements so as to minimize such conflicts between the character integrity and premise solutions, but Nar does prioritize the question over character integrity if need be. Something has to take precedence. If character integrity takes precedence over the premise question then the player is no longer prioritizing Nar play, or at least for that moment.

How can one tell if the player is not addressing the premise quesiton? By not sticking to the two possible implicit outcomes.

That's my thesis and I'm stickin' to it! ... unless proved otherwise.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Hello,

Two implicit outcomes, Jay? Sounds a little arbitrarily limited to me. I list four in Sorcerer, and that's because I'm considering only one of many, many possible qualifying variables. If you consider the dual-Humanity concept I introduce in Sex & Sorcery, things multiply again.

I'm pretty serious about this. Nothing about "problematic human dilemma" implies black-and-white thinking.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume wrote: In Narrativism, as I understand it, the important thing is the question. So important that the players will willingly forego better solutions, if they are available, to stick to the two implicit solutions so as to answer the question. Even if this violates character integrity. Obviously I think most Nar games would structure their elements so as to minimize such conflicts between the character integrity and premise solutions, but Nar does prioritize the question over character integrity if need be. Something has to take precedence. If character integrity takes precedence over the premise question then the player is no longer prioritizing Nar play, or at least for that moment.

Thanks, Ron, Jason.

BTW Where the hell did "character integrity" come from? It's not part of the topic and I fail to see how it applies.

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

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

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

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

--M. J. Young

Hello,

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

Best,
Ron

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

M. J. Young wrote: *snip*
That is not less a moral choice on my character's part, certainly. Indeed, whatever he chooses is going to reflect what Jack is calling "deep character". However, as a player, what now goes through my head is that I can do this--I can end run the referee's clever little plot and save everyone. It's risky, and I might fail, but I think that the odds are good enough that I can save them all. I'm going to step up to this challenge and prove that I'm good enough to do this.

I have indeed examined and revealed the deep character of my character Spiderman: he takes the risk that he might lose everyone in the hope that he might save everyone. At the same time, while I'm doing this exploration of character by revealing his deep character, I am playing gamist. I'm trying to beat the referee's clever little problem and prove that I can outplay the challenge.

*snip*