« Vintage Game Club | Home | Ultima VII: The Land of Sub-Optimal Paths »
Character Before Plot, Please
By Corvus | August 26, 2008
Narratives do similar things, albeit internally, they often require characters to act in less than optimal ways for dramatic purposes.
–Justin Keverne
Hopefully Justin isn’t going to going to feel picked on that I keep ganking his quotes to inspire posts.
My initial reaction to this quote was extremely negative, and when I calm down and think carefully about it–I’m still not crazy about the premise as it’s worded. It seems to imply that the plot is king and that the characters ought to dance to the pull of its strings. I know a lot of writing happens this way–particularly a lot of television writing. But it’s dishonest and wrong and I hate it.
How many times in media have you seen a brunette female sidekick character with glasses and knew, immediately, that she was “the smart one?” She’s probably shy, not at all confident in herself, and she acts, and is treated, as if she’s ugly (except, perhaps, by that one special guy.. who’s likely a geek). Of course, she isn’t ugly at all. Her figure is exactly the same as the blond female lead who is recognized as “the hot one,” and her facial features are just as artificially chiseled and delicate as the lead. But she’s obviously “the smart one” on account of the glasses, the brown hair… and possibly freckles.
Now, out of the movies that feature this character archetype–how many times did “the smart one” actually behave like a smart character? I’m not referring to carrying books around or using a computer. I’m not referring to the character providing the crucial knowledge needed to chase the maguffin, target the bad guy’s weakness, or solve the transparent puzzle to escape the crumbling sunken temple. I mean, how many times did the character actually behave in a fashion consistent with her supposed intelligence?
The problem with “the smart one” is that she serves the plot–the plot does not serve her. She has no purpose other than exposition and when she’s not performing that particular purpose–she’s, at best, nothing and, at worst, an idiot.
That’s just a particularly blatant, and commonly used, example of characters serving the needs of the plot. As Michael pointed out in his comments at one point–The Dark Knight had several problematic moments where characters undercut their own strengths in order to advance the plot in a particular direction. It doesn’t seem to have hurt that movie any (but, c’mon, that’s because of Heath’s amazing performance), but I’d argue that Hellboy 2 was an endless succession of devaluing strong characters in favor of advancing the plot.
So why is this a problem? Why am I even talking about it? Because, as I have stated in the past, character relationships are what make for good drama. Relationships with each other, relationships with their environment, relationships with their pasts, relationships with their own psyche. Good drama is not made from stock characters, car chases, and massive slow motion explosions. Good drama, compelling drama, meaningful drama, is made from character relationships. Good drama does not require characters to act in less than optimal ways to advance the plot.
This does not mean that all characters need to be perfect–far from it. But the plot needs to grow organically from the decisions made by the characters. If the character errs, it ought to be because that character’s relationships dictated the sub-optimal decision.
Take the movie Sideways, for example. The first hour and fifteen minutes of that movie feature Miles making sub-optimal decisions. In fact, hardly any character in the movie made an optimal decision. It was excruciating. I hated these people and I was angry that I was “wasting my time” on this movie. But… they were real. They were raw. They were screwed up. They were damaged goods. And I bought it. The plot didn’t seem to be going anywhere. There didn’t appear to be any chance at redemption for any of the characters. But in the last ten minutes of the movie, Miles was taking his initial staggering steps towards something better. And suddenly, the entire movie had been worth watching.
If this had been a film where the characters served the plot, it would likely have played out much differently. Plots like patterns and the rule of three, and we would likely have been subjected to several short-handed attempts to show Miles unsuccessfully breaking out of his self-destructive relationship. Plots like clear, strong finishes, and if the plot had ruled Sideways, Miles would likely have appeared in a tuxedo to stand before an altar just before the credits rolled. In other words, we’ve all seen the plot of Sideways before and it’s usually billed as a romantic comedy where everyone behaves poorly and out of character for the benefit of a laugh and wind up married, but no different than they were at the beginning of the movie. Sideways took a much different route and provided a truly compelling and cathartic journey by allowing the character relationships to guide the plot.
And it paid off, if you’re wondering. Sideways won 92 the 126 film award nominations it received–including an Oscar for best adapted screenplay.
And… with those thoughts out of the way, I’ll be bringing the conversation back to video games tomorrow with a post titled Ultima VII: The Land of Sub-Optimal Paths.
Tagged:character, plot, storytelling. |
August 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I totally agree that characters should be consistent and that the plot should develop for their actions.
However if all characters acted in optimal ways, that is they never made mistakes and always took the right course of action there would be no drama. The actions and outcomes would be predictable.
The best example I can find of a fictional character who does act in an optimal fashion is Sherlock Holmes. What makes those stories compelling is that they are told by John Watson and so we don’t understand, as Watson doesn’t, what the often arbitrary seeming action of Holmes are leading to. Our experience with the character leads us to believe that he has formed a careful and intricate plan but we don’t know what that is because our insight into the events is provided by a character who by his very nature does not behave in an optimal manner.
Maybe my personal definition of optimal is being coloured by my experience as a programmer.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Nicely put, I enjoyed that. And any reference to Sideways is never a bad thing.
Where I think this really takes on a new and interesting (not to mention complicated) perspective is when you try to apply it to videogames. Here again I’m referring more to single-player games rather than multiplayer games, which really is of greater interest to me.
If we really want videogames to take that same approach — making the stories more about character relationships than plot — we’re then stuck with this fascinating dilemma: how do you accurately represent the relationships between the player character and the other characters, when the player is an external force controlling the player character? That relationship between the player and the player character is really interesting.
In some games, the player character is not particularly well-defined, and the player can easily step into that character and act without breaking any authorial preconceptions or expectations. But in some games — and these are rife in the interactive fiction genre — the player character is, in fact, fairly well-defined, and as a result there are many actions or behaviors that would not technically be “in character”. But, being a game of course, we give control of that character to the player and try to give them at least a certain degree of freedom to act in whichever way they desire, even if it is out of character. Dealing with that situation, I believe, is one of the bigger challenges of the single-player story-based game developer.
Many developers respond by restricting the range of possible behaviors for the player, but often this is met with criticism or frustration by players, who perhaps don’t see the value or need for behaving in a way that is consistent with the character they are playing. Should we, as authors and developers, expect them to? Or force them to?
August 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’ve wondered about this myself, and thought about whether the player has an “obligation” (For lack of a more appropriate term) to behave in ways consistent with their character. That was the designer can focus on providing meaningful consequences for their actions and not have to deal with them running around and jumping on tables.
Though I’ve described the concept in more detail on my own blog I’m not sure that I’m entirely sold on the idea myself.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The problem, as I see it, is that the story itself is still widely considered to be a separate layer of the game from the game mechanics. Dialog belongs to story, player behavior belongs gameplay. The end result is a severe disconnect between what NPCs are saying to you and your behavior.
Until such time as player actions, all player actions, are directly interpreted as components of the story… it’s not going to be solved, either.
“…and so we have to get you to the… Gordon? Gordon, why are you jumping on that table? We’re talking about your life, here. Okay, that’s better. You’re going to have to follow the tunnels until… what do you mean, no? Why are you shaking your head? You don’t want to follow the tunnels? Okay, look. Now your just being unreasonable and… okay Gordan you have to go now. Sorry I didn’t get to debrief you. Go out this door or any second the guards will break in and kill us both.”
August 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
So how should a game react if the player behaves in a way which prevents establishing a solid drama… like in the gordon/table example you quoted?
Btw, Jonathan Blow said in a recent presentation that the kind of stories games can tell are extremely limited exactly because of this - because there will always be a dynamic factor (aka the Player) that need to be considered. My reaction was that he is right on the one hand but the conclusion would be not that games can’t tell stories really well but that games should tell stories DIFFERENTLY.. or tell different kinds of stories. In the recent book “Space Time Play” there was a great example called “Environmental Storytelling.”
But apart from the game mechanics vs. story issue: what exactly do you mean by “optimal”?
August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Well, with stereotypes you get the benefit of implied backstory instead of having to build-up characters entirely from scratch. The same is true for (hackneyed) plotlines. I mean, there are really only so many stories to tell, and the magic is in how they’re mixed and matched. For a while, even plot twists became an overused plot device. That said, I’m still entertained when a writer can take advantage of pre-established archetypes and repurpose them in unexpected ways.
As for games, they’re still about smoke and mirrors. I think I’ve finally reached that jaded state where I derive joy from suverting the intended design. Like playing Half-Life 2 while drunk, and accosting NPCs by whacking them with a bicycle during cutscenes. Or playing Thief 2 as a sword-fighting simulation.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
there’s sword fighting in thief 2???
krystian i think you hit the nail on the head. games have the potential to tell different stories in unique ways, not the typical (insert generic framework for story here, i.e. campbell, hollywood, ) story. i’d say games are less limited than other medium. if you want to tell a story like a movie make a metal gear solid-type game, if you want to tell a story like a choose-your-own-adventure make a bioware-type game. ok enough hyphens from me.
corvus i like the post but everybody sees through your using-other-people’s-quotes-as-your-muse routine
August 26th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
@Krystian I’m suggesting that if every action of the player were considered to be a part of the unfolding story, the one-way conversations of HL2 should play out exactly like I suggested.
Jonathan and I feel exactly the opposite on this topic. Games as storytelling platforms will become nearly limitless precisely because they have that most dynamic and participatory element–the player.
What do I mean by optimal? I’ll try and answer that clearly in tomorrow’s post.
@Alan I’m all for using stereotypes if you can turn them into archetypes by the end of the story. What do I mean by that? I mean you need to breath life into them–make them into living, breathing characters with strong relationships. Then, as a storyteller, you’re doing your job.
I too often enjoy subverting a game’s intended design. How much more exciting will that become when your actions have immediate and direct consequences? When the targets of your inanity say, “Well if you’re going to hit me with a bicycle, I’m not going to tell you where the meeting is being held!”
@Alex You mean you all realize that it’s a means of trying to spark more conversation and make this blog less of a one-way diatribe? Dag-nabbit! And here I thought I was being cagey.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Archetypes are useful because they provide a short hand for understanding a character. Unlike a stereotypes they aren’t all that the character is, which makes them useful but allows room for flaws and quirks that make them rounded characters. Nobody will really care about the “tart with a heart” if that’s all she is.
The problem with strict stereotypes is what you see is what you get. They are boring characters because there’s little about them you don’t understand already.
@Krystian:
When it comes to game storytelling you can either look at games and say “This is really like anything before, so we can’t really do anything with it.” Or you say: “This isn’t really like anything before, so we can do anything with it.”
I’m in the latter camp.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
In the battle between plot and character, videogames will always tend to pull towards plot, I fear, simply because the personalities of those that make games are naturally skewed towards plot over character.
This is an even bigger problem for games because the same bias naturally seeps into the audience - and I’m increasingly doubtful that this issue can be resolved by expanding the audience, as it seems that games that hit wide in the mass market move further and further away from stories. (But I’m open to the idea that there is a new opportunity here that has simply not been exploited).
But the issue of whether plot should trump character and vice versa also looks at this from an overly reductive angle. You want to make the claim that plot should derive from character (I think) but when I look at Shakespeare and Dickens etc. what I find is character and plot fitting together neatly (with some exceptions) with no obvious bias for either. (Although both become more interested in character and less in formal plot as their careers progress).
Then you come to the problem of applying this to games, and it all gets trickier, because as a matter of structure, plot is more important to the game design process than character. Note that I don’t say that plot is more important to the *game* than character, because this would be a fallacy.
I think this inevitably creates a push in favour of plot, especially when the people working on the game narrative don’t have much experience in story construction.
Ah, here’s my next meeting. Must fly!
August 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
You know me, I love to excise the ends of a spectrum and discuss them in their pure form. I do feel exploring compelling and consistent character decisions should trump plot devices, but I do recognize the importance of developing a compelling plot as well.
The problem comes in when dull rehashed plots get dressed up in fancy new clothes and their socks don’t match their hair ties. As it were.
I hope you’re wrong about the future of storytelling in video games. Designing from the perspective of a character’s abilities and motivations and moving out into plot from their would make for an excellent game.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
What about a game where you have a bunch of NPCs with fleshed-out personalities, put them in a situation, set the player loose and let the plot and gameplay emerge from there? I guess it would take a pretty sophisticated AI, but game programming has really barely scratched the surface when it comes to AI.
I guess what I’m describing is a character-heavy sandbox game where you can actually affect the world around you and its people outside of just blowing things up or doing fetch quests. I think this is an area where games could really tell unique stories–by focusing on making very detailed characters and setting them loose on a world, rather than creating a linear plot to be followed.
I have an example in mind but it’s too long for a blog comment and I want to flesh it out more; maybe this will get me back to writing…
August 28th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Corvus: Whenever I grumpily dismiss possibilities I’m probably wrong - let’s hope so, at least.
What would *really* prove me wrong would be if I could make my oft-hankered for game adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, and also make money selling it.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:43 am
@Eleniel (Hi Alex!) Part of my theoretic work on the HoneyComb Engine is aimed at figuring out how to do that with the lowest possible overhead, and in a way that’s consistent enough to register as a sort of “real” environment for the player.
I’ve settled on a path of course work that I hope to start next year and the initial stages are going to involve a lot of CS and advanced math classes. Hopefully I’ll start working on fun prototypes and proof-of-concept gamelets shortly thereafter.
@Chris I don’t know how much money you’d make from selling it, but you could probably make a fortune in speakers fees talking about having done so.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I’ve been thinking about how games could handle character focused stories for a while.
I’m hoping that being repeatedly quoted out of context is going to balance out my rather blatant self-promotion here…
http://gropingtheelephant.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/a-matter-of-character/
That’s a rather high level, quick and dirty, musing on how you could approach such a system, it also goes someway towards merging my comflicting passions of storytelling, game design and AI.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for sharing that post, Justin. I read it when I first added your blog to my feeds and it’s a good one.
I, of course, go on and on about how games ought to be about character. I often feel that AD&D, with it’s +10 swords of spending and magical mitts of consumerism, is one of the worst things to ever happen to games.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Ha, I can understand picking on AD&D (I used to do it myself in the past), but it’s not the game that makes the players want to play that way, Corvus… believe it or not, it’s meeting a play need.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t or can’t strive for more, of course!
Have a great weekend!
August 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
There are a lot of people whose bodies are convinced that they need nicotine, trans-fats, and high fructose corn syrup too, Chris. Need doesn’t dictate the health and viability of a system.
August 31st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Corvus. Fantastic post. Just found your blog this morning via Rampant Coyote (Jay).
I agree with all my relationship-driven heart with your statement above.
Listening to some of my favourite authors, it seems they have an organic writing style where the plot is sketched out but the characters themselves, the writing of them, of their experiences, bend and mould the plot accordingly.
Kudos!
September 1st, 2008 at 7:36 am
Thanks, Stu. It’s a topic I’m quite passionate about myself!