thread: 2005-05-03 : Creating Theme
On 2006-01-27, Roger wrote:
> You need a character with a stake in the issue. "I take one side of the issue very strongly" is a stake in the issue.
I've seen this messed up badly too many times. It usually looks something like this:
We have our good friends, GameMaster G and Player P.
G: So, we're going to do one of those Narrative games. I'm thinking of an issue something like Honour vs Family.
P: Sounds great! How about if I'm a samurai? I'll take the Honor side of the issue very strongly.
G: Sounds good to me. Alright, you are summoned by the lord to whom you've sworn fealty. He orders you to kill your wife, who, it has been discovered, is a spy for a foreign power.
P: Alright. I slit her throat while she sleeps that night.
G: What? But what about the importance of Family?
P: My character feels very strongly that Honour is more important. Look, it says so right here on my character sheet.
And then it's just any one of a dozen common bitter arguments.
These sorts of zealot characters are incredibly easy to build within most Narrative systems, and they're problematic in all of them.
I'm probably sounding pretty hard on Player P right now, but I really shouldn't be. He's followed all the rules and recommendations. He's done exactly what his friend G has asked him to do. He's playing in good faith to the best of his ability. And yet he somehow ends up the bad guy most of the time.
Some games manage to dodge this issue. Sorcerer is particularly clever, though that cleverness hinges on Humanity. Of course, it doesn't work unless you take some care defining Humanity. At its heart, it's something that has to be inherently as least as important as any other thing in the character's life.
This produces a choice for the character, which is, to some degree, what Narrative games are all about, and what zealot characters inherently avoid.
Now, I'm not saying that it isn't possible to set up the crazy samurai situation in Sorcerer. But I believe it's designed such that it's conducive to setting up issues of [Issue X] vs Humanity, and the characters, who care deeply about Issue X, also get this default deep concern about Humanity.
I would suggest, therefore, that any decent character really needs at least two stakes in the issue, one on either side. A character with a single stake is insufficient.
I know this is probably stuff that has Vincent and a lot of other Narrative-experienced people saying "Well, duh, of course it has to be that way." But I'm not kidding when I say that I've seen lots of good intentioned people walk down this unmarked dead-end.
