[Land of Nodd] Mermaid Sashimi (is antagonism a mirror to protagonism?)
Paul T:
Questions to Address
I have three main points of concern that arose from this game, and that I'd like to get some advice on. If any of the other players have others, I'd love to hear them, as well--if you're reading, speak up!
The first was already touched upon:
1. How do we deal with a character how is either villainous or not a clear protagonist? There's been a lot of thought given to Protagonism, both within RPG theory and in literary/dramatic contexts. John (Cinderella's player) put this quite well: a protagonist is not a protagonist without adversity. There has to be come opposition to the protagonist's goals, values, or he/she cannot truly be a protagonist at all. A protagonist needs adversity--and adversity of a specific sort--to be. In a game like this, where that must created by the other players, it is a must to understand this. (Although I am tempted to think that this is something we human beings understand intuitively.)
An antagonist or villain, however, is trickier. A villain's opposition is normally a hero or a protagonist. But how can we present adversity to a villainous character without making the story about the forces facing them? Does adding a hero change the focus of the story from the villain to the hero? What elements must be in play for the antagonist to remain central to the story? Is the inclusion of sympathetic motivations, as we created in our story to "fix" this problem, necessary? Are there other factors? Other ways to handle this?
2. My second question is related to Ron Edwards' concept of Story Now vs. Story After. I am well familiar with the idea of Story After, not only from the way it is described, but also in personal experience. I've been part of many games that made practically no sense, then were reinterpreted as "cool stories" after-the-fact. This game was kind of an interesting contrast to both views, however:
I feel there was definitely a story in play, Story Now-style, in action, throughout. However, much of the ramifications of the "larger story", implied rather than overtly displayed, are only revealed to me in hindsight, as when you watch a movie but only "get it" an hour later, as certain elements click into place in your head.
So, where does this fall on that spectrum? Am I making stuff up to justify the game I just played? Or is this a total valid form of enjoyment--to discover something about a story in retrospect? In large part, I am going to have to wait for the players to tell me whether they saw the story in the same way that I did. Perhaps our experiences will match up, and perhaps they won't. If those mismatches are interesting alternative interpretations, that sounds cool and dandy to me. But if they are lacking those critical points that make something "story", then I may be fooling myself.
However, I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on this, and whether they have had any similar experiences. How does one distinguish a dishonest Story After situation from a tale that just doesn't reveal everything in the moment?
Note: It's possible that much of this "effect" is due to our choice to "rush through" the last stages of the game, giving them minimal narration. Not only did we rush through potentially important bits of dialogue and events, but the very speed of play didn't leave us room to reflect and digest what was happening until afterwards.
3. My third question is more of a practical one, about a specific Technique or Techniques:
In a four-player game of Land of Nodd, in any given scene, two players are sitting and listening. They put the mechanics of play into motion and name Risks, which often determine the shape of the story to come, but in the free play portion of the scene leading up to the conflict, they don't play any active part.
We tried on numerous occasions to involve those players by letting them play the parts of "NPCs"--characters the Protagonist was interacting with. Sometimes this worked really well, and sometimes it fell totally flat or felt awkward.
Most often, the secondary characters only supplied bits of dialogue as Color, without really changing any content in the scene. Personally, I was surprised by how much fun that was. While in the Protagonist or Narrator chair, the pressure is ON in this game. Playing an "NPC" in another character's scene was relaxed and playful in comparison, and very enjoyable. We used those opportunities to create fun little details in play, and I think we all enjoyed it a great deal. (Unless I was the only one, of course!)
However, there were definitely a few attempts that really didn't go anywhere, or felt awkward.
Is there any good existing advice on this issue, or advice any of you can share with me? How can we better incorporate NPCs played by "players"* into our game? This design, in particular, has a lot to gain from such techniques, and I'd like to hear any advice you have to offer.
Thanks for reading,
Paul T.
*: Gosh, that gamer vocabulary ("player", "GM", "NPC") sure gets difficult to use sometimes. Yerch.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Paul,
I think your distinction between Story After (which I hesitate to tag as always dishonest, but yes, it often is) and Story Now + Reflection is not too difficult. It seems equivalent to the role of reflection in any number of other narrative media. One might thrill to the events in Die Hard, then wonder why Die Hard 2 sucked such amazingly awful donkey dick - it's just more of the same, right? But then upon reflection, one might realize that Die Hard is wholly centered on a man reconciling with his genuinely estranged wife, whereas in Die Hard 2 the relationship is not an issue, nor is there any similarly-engaging issue at work at all.
That doesn't mean one has to be cognizant of the relationship issues while watching the first film. I am wholly convinced that the mind processes all of that stuff in exquisite detail without any need for verbalizing or (for lack of a better word) awareness of it. The reflection is a matter, just as you say, of turning it over later, outside of the initial experience of enjoying it unfold. I have experienced this same effect regarding role-playing many times, especially when using highly nuanced settings like Glorantha or highly nuanced character-decision type games like Sorcerer. Immodestly, I think it's merely a predictable outcome of a group getting good at Story Now - the stories become better, in terms of both (1) being so hard-hitting and intuitive as you play that you need not consider very much as you go, and (2) being about more and deeper stuff regardless of how superficial-fun-explosions the other events of play might be.
The difference between all of this and Story After is the degree of editing involved in the latter. Swathes of material that was actually played must be forgotten or remembered only in terms of in-game time, no matter that the two-minute fight took six hours or that we wambled for two hours between anything even interesting, let alone consequential. Conversely, stuff that wasn't played has to get invented and inserted as 'having happened," either in a subsequent session or in discussions and hints afterward in ordinary conversation.
When I talk about Before, Now, and After, I'm pretty much referring to the standard story-structure of conflict + rising action + climax + resolution, being generated via the actual processes, right there, of play. It's pretty easy to see whether one, and one's group, is really doing this. I think of the reflection and insight that you're talking about as being a ... well, not a side effect, but a consequence, a major benefit of being able to use one's brain and social creativity to do something well.
Best, Ron
Demiurge:
Hi Paul!
For #1:
I think the terms Protagonist and Antagonist are relative. The protagonist is the character with the story focus at the moment, and an Antagonist is a character actively moving against the Protagonist (i.e. presenting the Protagonist with obstacles to his goals). For example, from the villain's perspective, he's the Protagonist, and the hero is his Antagonist.
Hence, whatever works in the story to make the Protagonist interesting (conflict) will work equally well for a hero or a villain. At least I think it should!
I think the problems you're describing with the police officer character are more related to lack of a clear goal than his transformation into a villain. With a clear goal, it's easier to set obstacles and create conflict. In particular, the transformation itself (and not its destination) could have presented difficulty, because things that were obstacles beforehand were no longer obstacles during/after the transformation. So this might have created an askward period for you.
What do you think?
For #3
Did you try having idle players use the Puppetland technique when they took the parts of NPCs? If yes, did it always work?
--Jonathan
Paul T:
Ron,
Thank you! Your spin on things makes sense to me.
Jon,
Thanks for commenting! (Jon played in the first ever playtest of Land of Nodd, so this is a nice surprise.)
For the antagonist/protagonist issue, you're mostly right. The biggest issue was Lawrence's lack of clear goals, which didn't give us much to target, story-wise. Once Lawrence developed a concrete goal (his desire for retirement), the story took off again, even though it wasn't ever clear whether he was a "good guy" or a "bad guy". I could see his story ending as a happy but bittersweet ending (Lawrence lives in fantasy land, struggling with his inhuman appetites) or as a tragic finish (Lawrence escapes justice and becomes a monster).
However, I do feel that there is a clear (though subjective) distinction in the eye of the beholder: when we're experiencing a story (whether as audience or creator), we do tend to slot characters into a "protagonist" or "antagonist" position, whether we're aware of it or not. That affects what kind of problems we might want them to face and what kind of choices we'd like to see them make. (As an interesting aside, what I enjoy about Musette, the game you and I are currently playing, is that it tends to leave each character's nature in question until the resolution of their story, creating a suprising and fascinating "reveal", where we are forced to judge the character.)
So, overall I agree with your points. However, I'm still interested in figuring a little more about how to deal with an antagonist (unsympathetic character) in a story. The history of roleplaying has always focused on the protagonists, and, as a result, I feel less confident, less sure, when dealing with an antagonist.
As for the Puppetland tecnique (Jon is referring to another conversation we're involved in elsewhere), there was no discussion of any specific technique for this game. We just let people do as they wished. However, 99% of the time in this game, players who took on "NPC" roles did exactly that, intuitively. It just makes sense, especially given the setup in Land of Nodd (where two players are highly active in driving the story forward). But we never discussed it, not beforehand nor afterwards.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page