head games
Alfryd:
Quote from: Matt Gwinn on March 04, 2011, 11:02:43 PM
Paul, what do you think "would" have been dramatic in those scenes. Was there something you expected to happen?
Maybe my character should have really ate the seed, or just handed the seed to the NPC, but those were pretty obvious choices and to be obvious isn't dramatic at all.
I'd just say that, while I agree the second example Paul gave did seem overly convoluted, I agree that the seed-eating choice doesn't seem particularly non-dramatic to me. I mean, if you wanted to interpret this from a narrativist-thematic perspective, "sweet lies are preferable to hard truths" would seem to be the thrust of that decision. What's wrong with that? *shrugs*
Alfryd:
Quote from: Alfryd on March 05, 2011, 06:26:12 AM
...I agree that the [faked] seed-eating choice doesn't seem particularly non-dramatic to me...
Whoops, fixed.
Jeff B:
Great topic. I think the earliest days of RPG's misled so many of us in so many ways. For example, the NPC-Employer quest model was over-used from the beginning. Perhaps it has taken decades to figure out that this format has certain weaknesses in actual play.
To respond from another angle, what I don't see mentioned in the play example is direct communication on the social level. If I were running that scenario, and the player faked the seed-swallow and then began to play head games, I would probably call for a pause in play and interact on the social level for a while: "It's difficult for me to respond to your character's actions without understanding your motive. Can you tell me about what your character wants to accomplish? Is the gameplay working for you so far?" This kind of communication can help ensure that the player is only messing with the NPC, rather than messing with the GM or just expressing superiority in a gamist way (as pointed out earlier in this thread).
In addition to the great comments I read here, tossing in my vote for direct player-to-player communication about goals and preferences.
Paul Czege:
Hey Matt,
I think that non obvious character actions aren't an important part of the recipe for drama. Graham Walmsley writes about this in Play Unsafe. Aiming for non obvious actions has pitfalls.
Graham writes, "Be obvious....When you respond obviously, 90% of the time, you'll carry the story forward naturally. If you'd tried to be clever, 90% of the time, you'd have thrown the story off course. And when you're obvious, one time in ten, you'll be brilliant." Also, "Be average. Don't try to be good at games. Don't try to play well....If you're trying to scale the heights of Awesome, we don't see Awesome: we see you trying."
Anyway, drama doesn't come from the non obvious and unexpected. It comes from creating expectations about things that are going to happen and managing and releasing tension about how and when the expectations will be satisfied.
So I can't say specifically what would have been dramatic in those scenes. But I think that protagonists create expectations by pursuing things that are important to them, and trying to solve things that are problematic or troubling to them.
I understand how fucking with NPCs feels thrilling because I've done it myself as a player. But it's not drama. I think David nails it in his comments. His answer to my "what motivates this stuff?" question rings true to my experience. It's thrilling because it's about power dynamics: having an information advantage, and throwing monkey wrenches around. But monkey wrenches aren't expectations that will be resolved, and information advantages that won't ever be released don't feed into the flow of drama.
Audiences get hooked on characters who seem human, because their pursuits are important to them. Stories are about an audience figuring out events that will come to pass, and anticipating and dreading the inevitable events because the flow of the story manages and releases tension about how and when.
That's why the fuckery was seeming weird to me. I don't see the thrills, because I'm not on the inside.
Paul
Renee:
Okay, so here's another wrinkle we haven't addressed: What about the role of resource management?
What I mean is that it was established early on that these seed pods are Pretty Fucking Cool(tm), and that possessing one was a fairly unique and interesting thing. Now, I'm not going to say that this was what Matt was doing, but maybe it makes sense to want to hold on to those things until you get maximum bang for them. And that bang could be a lot of things...not just using them, but bartering or trading them for other things or whatever. They are, after all, kind of a Big Deal in the setting (or so I've been led to believe).
And while that suggests yet more gaming of the situation, I don't think it's necessarily in disservice to the narrativist agenda (in fact, I'd say it's a gamist technique in service to narrativism...the seed pods have no system value whatsoever, they're wholly a story device with no other purpose in the game). We talk about "story now" and bangs as sussing out and doing whatever is most dramatic at the moment right now, but if the situation as presented wasn't dramatic (or dramatic enough, anyway) to inspire and provoke Matt, why would he be inclined to blow a valuable resource that he could later pull out for a bigger and more (personally) satisfying punch later on? The situation has to warrant pulling out the stops in that way.
And yeah, I know I'm kind of deflecting that back at you, and my intent isn't to defend Matt by fingerpointing in your direction...I mean this earnestly, as a topic for exploration. I don't know what Matt's read on that particular interaction was - whether he didn't think it was dramatic enough to go full tilt with his resources or not - but I know I've had scenes like that. My character doesn't have setting resources (like cool seed pods) available to him anyway (which is maybe why I keep going back to the jungle when I find myself creatively stymied...it's the ultimate, setting resource) but if I did, I wouldn't have been blowing them in hope of the scene becoming dramatic somewhere along the way...there has to be a promise of a payoff that I care about for me (using my favorite Ron phrase) to Step On Up in that way.
(Note: None of the above should be read as any kind of disappointment in the game. You know I really enjoy it. But it's a Pasta Flinger, not a Sausage Grinder, and an inherent characteristic of the Pasta Flinger is that some stuff is going to be good and stick and some isn't. And maybe sometimes we've glommed on to stuff we don't find that interesting and in so doing made it seem like it is, because we think maybe it'll become good, or at the very least, we know something better will eventually come along. But we're not going to waste our really cool stuff on story threads we're only mildly invested in because, you know, we may want that stuff later.)
(And here's a question for you, although I'm sure I know the answer: Suppose everything I wrote above does apply to Matt...that he just wasn't that invested in the scene/conflict/story arc of that NPC and as such, didn't want to waste his uber-cool seed pod right at that moment? Did he miss his one opportunity? Will his attempts to use the seed pod later in a cool and awesome way be undercut because he didn't use it in when the story most obviously was calling for it? I know you, so I'm pretty sure the answer is no, that seed pod isn't going to be relegated to the garbage pile of missed opportunities and forgotten about. The fact that something with that much dramatic potential is still in play is pretty cool to me.)
None of the above addresses what went on with Jason's scene obviously, and as I noted, it may have nothing to do with Matt either. But it's at least something interesting to discuss.
edited twice, once to correct a typo and once add the last sentence.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page