On Role Playing, Literature, and Acting

[benlehman]

This was an essay, but I realized that it can be trimmed to one line:

The only similarity between acting, literature, and role-playing games is that they all use words and, sometimes, plot arcs.

Relvevant Forge thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12711&highlight=

Anyone else have thoughts?

Comments

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Huh. I definitely agree that all through have it, but I would classify "character development" under "plot arc," most definitely. I'm interested that you don't.

Can you give an example of an interesting plot arc without character development, or an interesting character development without plot arc? I'd be curious to see that that looked like.

yrs--
--Ben

[russiandude.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm - I always though of plot as something external, related to the world and GM-generated, while character development is player derived and generated. While the two things can intersect, they do not necessarily mean one another. For example, a character can have a very interesting and involved experience of going onto an adventure, but not really progress much from the adventure. Also a character can realize something profound from a small experience, which will not significantly change or affect that plot, but still be a development for that character.
I hope I am making sense here.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

I have to say I disagree entirely with this. A character making a profound realization about something is just as much a part of the plot as the characters slaying the dragon at the end of the adventure. If the former isn't part of the plot, then it shouldn't even be mentioned because it can't concievably have any impact on the world (and I don't believe it's a realization or a decision if that's the case). If the latter isn't part of character development, then obviously slaying the dragon meant nothing to, and showed nothing about, the characters involved. Even the most venial and bored characters must be killing the dragon for SOME reason, and saying that the characters are willing to risk danger for gold or the safety of the community DOES develop character.

Also, character development isn't necessarily about a character changing. It can be just as easily and just as powerfully about revealing previously hidden aspects of the character.

I think that the distinction you're drawing between 'character plot' and 'overarching plot' is artificial, an artifact of the way most GMs have run games (and sadly, the way authors write books sometimes). All too often we see players who have characters with little emotional investment in the plot and a GM whose primary interest is in forwarding the Big Cool Stuff that he has planned and so ignores ways to make the BCS meaningful to the characters who are running through it. It's a style of gaming I'd like to see less of.

[clockwise.livejournal.com]

I think there are distinct differences between character development and plot, and that there are even differences between character development and character plot. The earlier is best explained with examples in literature or film, the later is better clarified with roleplaying.

Before I get into my arguements let me further posit that thinking of them as seperate can be a good thing as well, because it encourages authors/storytellers to have aspects of both. A character that enters and leaves a story unchanged is a fundamentally boring character and thinking about things in terms of how events shape a character can make for a much more powerful story.

Character development and plot are both Part of the Story, but they serve different roles. Imagine a book written about, oh, say the civil war. The plot of the story is about the clash of the northern and southern armies and the shaping of a nation. The book might also delve into, say, a general's relationship with his wife which in this case is character development. It doesn't effect the plot except insomuch as it shapes the character and helps explain some of the actions that he takes within the war. If the development doesn't effect the plot at all it could be argued to be bad development, but it's essential purpose is to create depth to the character and a humanizing element to the story. A story consisting entirely of character development is a bad story, a story consisting entirely of plot is a dull story, both aspects are necessary.

Character development is different from character plot. Taking a slightly subtler interpretation on character development than above. This is clearest in roleplaying largely because the GM only has control over character plot, whereas the player has control over character development. One of the most frustating things I find as a GM is when I create plot for a character but, for whatever reason, it just washes over them aparently without effect. Best example that comes to mind is the French Revolutionary plot I gave to Christoph in 7th Sea, which was certainly plot, but to my frustration didn't particuarly lead to character development. Stuff was happening, but the character effectively remained unchanged, he never made any particuarly interesting decisions and the plot didn't help reveal anything new or interesting about the character.

Keeping the ideas of character plot and over plot seperate is good for a GM in much the same way that keeping both character development and plot in mind is good for a writer. It encourages a GM to look at each of his players and give them something to involve themselves in. The best character plots tend to tie the characters either to each other in interesting ways, or to the plot, as well as providing the character with potential avenues of development.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

Hm, when I first read this I thought 'No, no, no!' but now I think we're more or less agreeing but using slightly different terminologies. I'm not suggesting that one ignore scenario plot in favor of character plot, or vice versa. I'm suggesting that they ought to be integrated more.

I know that character development and character plot are not necessarily the same thing; however, I feel that they are inextricably linked. It's hard to have character development without something meaningful happening plotwise to them.

For instance, in 7th Sea, it seemed to me that one of the reasons that Cristophe didn't get character development or interesting decisions was that the things that were happening to him weren't presented as things that were meaningful to the character. They were dangerous, certainly, and he tried to take the most expedient way out of danger, but not emotionally involving. I'm not saying that was

To put what I said in better terms - I believe that it is necessary to integrate plot which targets, emotionally involves, and is meaningful to each single character/player with plot which targets the whole scenario (whether that's saving the world or whatever). I think a lot of GMs (though not many in FGS) present 'The Adventure' ("There is a haunted fortress north of town.") and expect their characters to run through it, because that's what you do, right? And sometimes players go along with it because if they don't then they don't get to roleplay at all. Like you said, the best character plots integrate the other characters and the overarching plot.

[arianhwyvar.livejournal.com]

Also, character development isn't necessarily about a character changing. It can be just as easily and just as powerfully about revealing previously hidden aspects of the character.

It sounds like you're talking about character development in a literature sense: giving the character depth in the view of outsiders, including by making clearer what was already there. I was actually thinking specifically of character development in a forward direction, i.e character change throughout the course of a story.

I do think there are 'plot arcs' to a game or story which do not necessarily include every way in which a character changes, or at least, that do not include those details as central to the plot arc of the story as a whole. One issue, I think, is that there really are a great many arcs and stories within a single game. In a LARP, that's very obvious; in a tabletop, maybe less so, but still true. From my perspective, the story I play out in a game may be about how my character came to trust other people and let go her delusions until she turned into something quite different. For me, major plot changes in the scenario may actually be incidental to the story arc I care about. My character development may also be incidental to the stories played out by most other people. Whatever perspective someone has, it is likely that the best story for them will be something that includes aspects of character change, world change, drama and excitement, relationships with a variety of other characters, etc. But people's desired ratio of various aspects may
differ.

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

I think where I'm coming from with that is that I get a lot of joy from creating new aspects of a character, as well as changing old aspects. For instance, there's a sardine-eating plot in Aralis. Until then, I hadn't thought that Marric had any opinion one way or another about sardines, but now I decide that to make things more interesting he really, really hates sardines.

Obviously, this is a deliberately stupid example, but that kind of thing happens, and I have a lot of fun with it. You can say on the one hand that that aspect of Marric's character was 'already there', and that I'm revealing it, but at least to me it _is_ character development. In fact, I can work backwards from it and create entire chunks of backstory, other personality traits, etc. etc. I'm not sure quite where the divide is in roleplaying between 'changing a character' and 'creating new facets of the character', as long as neither one contradicts events which have been shared with others and thus can't be redacted. They seem like aspects of the same thing.

[arianhwyvar.livejournal.com]

I would guess that many of us have read and enjoyed books that lack much in the way of character development, i.e. change, over the course of the story. These books may not be of the sort that people would call great literature, but can be enjoyable nonetheless.

Long series about a particular character often do this. It's another adventure of... (Sherlock Holmes? Conan? Tarma and Kethry? Drizzt Do'Urden?) Sure, for some of these you can make a case that the character does change, but there are certainly plenty of stories where that change, if it occurs, certainly isn't a major focus.

And sometimes it's less fun. Of the Jhereg books, I really don't like Teckla, where the protagonist goes through a lot of (depressing) change. He doesn't change much over the course of some of the others, and frankly, I prefer seeing him do his normal thing of figuring it out and getting the better of the other guys.