fairness · 12:34am Apr 7th, 2020
This is a good video (hopefully it works in all browsers, GDC's site is weird) about fairness in games. And by extension, stories.
https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1025683/Board-Game-Design-Day-King
Preferences are preferences, but some of them are much stronger than that. Things that feel wrong to us. Like we want to say, "that's not how stories should go!"
Cole Wehrle is the most interesting game designer around today, and uses all these interesting ideas on history and politics in his games. If you don't care about game design, at least watch the first ~30 minutes for the fascinating history lesson. The video can speak for itself, but it did make me want to write out some thoughts on these ideas.
( By coincidence, while writing this, he did a follow-up interview about the same subject on a podcast posted the other day: https://player.fm/series/ludology-2394647/ludology-222-johnny-fairplay )
Just on the topic of games, this helps me understand some of my own habits. Mainly how I just don't care that much about competition as an end goal. Competitive gamers usually dislike me because I introduce so much chaos into their careful plans. I was already a big admirer of Bernard De Koven's theories.
The point about cheating somehow didn't come as a surprise to me. Probably because I'm so used to Fukumoto's gambling manga (this is like the 5th time I've brought him up, but I love his stories).
In a typical story about gambling, it'll probably go something like this: the bad guy cheats, because that's what bad guys do. Then the good guy beats him with pure skill, to show that cheaters never win. But in Fukumoto's universe, it never happens that way. Bad guys cheat, and good guys cheat too. In their world, there's a silent, implicit acceptance of cheating.... as long as you don't get caught.
These are usually dangerous yakuza characters, so even if you're sure you've been cheated, you can't accuse them without evidence (then it becomes a matter of honor, weapons get drawn, etc.). Characters still get upset over it, but they know it's useless to complain unless you can outsmart the trickster who did it to you.
When talking with other fans who read this stuff, some of them still get tripped up by that ethos. Sometimes they still see "bad guy cheats" as some kind of authorial statement, because this gets pretty well programmed into our minds. When actually the author is suggesting that the morality seperating the protagonists from the villains lies in what they do after winning, not how they win.
Anyway. Ever thought about how casinos try to eliminate all of that kind of cheating? They want to catch cheaters, and their employees will play by the rules (so you'll come back). It's fair. Except... the house always wins, so is it really fair? They're using this mystical, secret sorcery known to some as mathematics, so they can win money in their own fair games. It's a new form of cheating.
What? Math isn't cheating? Yeah it is. The casinos outright admit it themselves.
Card-counters, such as the MIT Blackjack team, use mathematics themselves to nudge the odds back in their favor and win money. Then the casinos got mad and tried to prosecute them for cheating! Hypocritical admission of guilt, right there.
US and Canadian courts ruled in favor of the card-counters as "not cheating" but that doesn't 100% protect them (they can refuse service). Do it overseas and you can get thrown in prison.
DON'T GAMBLE, KIDS.
But yeah, back to fairness. It is strange to realize it may be a modern invention. Though fairness in law goes back millenia, fairness in the stories we tell ourselves (whether in games or in books) has this way of making us believe in it and seek it out. And I do like Cole's point, that it's usually not a bad thing, but we have to distance ourselves from it or lose out on other possibilities, e.g. irony.
For those who've read Dune (SPOILERS), I always thought the climax wasn't the sword duel against Feyd-Rautha, but the choice made by Count Fenring. His best friend, the Emperor, orders him to kill Paul the protagonist, and both Paul and Fenring know that he could do it.... yet he chooses not to. Paul wins.
That's kingmaking right there. And it might seem a little weird in this classic "hero's journey" book, that right at the climax the hero did NOT succeed because of his own ability. But Frank Herbert claims his story is a challenge to why we seem to trust hero figures so much, so I think it's a fitting subversion to the usual myth.
Some people prefer the original Dune over its sequels because it follows the hero's journey so closely (I do admit it's more thrilling), but maybe that subversion is mostly lost on them. I mean, this plot point I just went over isn't even mentioned on the book's wikipedia entry! So maybe I'm the only person in the world interpreting the ending this way. It's only a page, but still, there's so much foreshadowing leading up to this one page....
I can't even remember where and when, but Bad Horse said to me once how "character growth" just doesn't exist anywhere in stories until the modern age. The Epic of Gilgamesh being the one exception we could collectively think of. For most of history, it just wasn't a part of people's lives. Maybe.
And I'm not so sure it's always a good thing to believe in. Sometimes it feeds us, but sometimes it poisons us. Like maybe it's just driven by consumer culture -- you can become anything; why haven't you become something yet?! It's because you're missing things; you should acquire those things. And now, here's social media to constantly remind you of what you're missing out on, far more effectively than TV ever did.
Reading this thing suggested that it can also be a fallacy or coping mechanism we tell ourselves. Your mistake wasn't a waste, because you grew from it! Even if you didn't grow at all and are making the same mistakes again. It's like sour grapes in reverse.
I hope this doesn't sound too cynical, because again I don't hate the idea of character growth by itself. I'm just sick of reviewers using it as a criticism.
You know, I can't actually remember any writing guide saying to do it this way, so maybe it's a strawman built up in my head. But the amateurs sure do believe in it. I constantly see reviews and critiques about how such-and-such story got boring (fair enough) and it's because the characters never grew or developed (wtf?). These are stories where that just didn't matter, because they're not even attempting to be a bildungsroman. People are so addicted to that one genre, they want to apply it everywhere!
DON'T WRITE REVIEWS, KIDS.
A little while ago when Martin Scorsese wrote that criticism of superhero movies, I read through some of the backlash. Not amateurs this time, but professional journalists. One of them rebutted that Marvel superhero movies actually have quite a lot of depth, because many of them feature character development. I was stunned. That's artistic depth? Even Michael Bay movies have character development. Um, sometimes.
It's just a plot device to tell one type of story, where a character gets what they wanted. They only deserve it after changing for the better, because that's "fair".
It's a really fun story, I love those. But we all know the world actually isn't always fair. So sometimes we need to tell other types of stories.
I feel excited but also anxious even posting this, because this goes into a lot of academic territory, and I'm a complete failure at academics. Literally anyone else on this website is more qualified than me to actually discuss this topic.
Huh, lot of interesting topics you bring up here. And that’s such a Bad Horsian conversation to have.
5237612
Thanks for reading. This one's sort of a mess.
You make an interesting point about character growth, which is running right smack into my ethos or preferences or … I don't know, maybe even the entire reason I write, so I'm trying to poke at it a bit rather than rejecting it out of hand.
If character growth doesn't always matter — that I can provisionally accept; showing snapshots of a character without any movement toward growth is legit, and showing characters that don't grow is legit sometimes too — there seems to be a larger point you're implying here that it's not always positive. Can you think of an example where you feel character growth made the story worse?
5241199
That's a fair question. Maybe even a tricky one. I've been putting a lot of thought into how to answer it.
Before I do, I want to make sure I'm correctly understanding the question, so I don't go off on the wrong path. Do you mean where it's negative for the character themselves? Or that it's good for the character, but makes the story weaker?
(Or both?)
5241326
Makes the story weaker.
Specifically in response to points like: "People are so addicted to that one genre, they want to apply it everywhere!" My gut reaction to that is, um, yeah, that's like saying house builders are addicted to roofs? Sometimes you have plans that don't require one, but I feel like it's a standard component of most stories and so I'm trying to feel out the scope of your objection.
5241366
To clarify what I think I believe there.... I don't blame the builders at all. Just those who would walk into a courtyard or football stadium and criticize them for not having roofs (ok, some stadiums have roofs now). That's the part I think can be harmful, especially for the builders.
I can't think of a negative example directly, except maybe a strawman example in my mind where character growth undermines the story's own themes. Probably exists somewhere, but I just can't think of any. And I'm not sure it's what I'm aiming at with my argument.... I swear I'm not trying to move the goalposts. I can't hit the bullseye, but maybe I can carve a circle around it.
There's unfair examples I want to avoid, such as when a story calls for character growth but it was executed badly (or missing). But also there's stories where it's done effectively but can feel manipulative, such as making a horrific character appear sympathetic. In this case I may disagree with the story, but I can't blame the structure of the argument.
What comes to mind is when character growth is overused and leads to audience fatigue. I criticized Thundercats for this, though I don't remember the details very well now. Growth should've dovetailed with climactic moments, but it happened nearly every episode. It felt like lots of temporary feel-good moments that don't stick. The repetitive sequels to Rocky come to mind, he's always knocked down from the top and has to learn how to climb back up again.
And I guess MLP is an obvious example where this became a problem over time. Characters supposedly would grow but not change, learning the same lessons over again. Or they achieve their goals but had no more room to improve. or Applejack is a background character because she never grows.
Oof, this is still controversial in the fandom 10 years later, but I'll say it. I think MLP did get worse after season 1 because of character growth. Not hugely worse; it was still a great show for several seasons... just a different story with slightly different appeal. Season 1 had some character growth, like with Twilight learning to value friends, but most of its story was focused on the bonds between characters, and learning about the world around them. With season 2, the focus went heavy on character drama and overcoming flaws, while the character relationships felt like an afterthought, featuring less and less.
"It's worse" is so subjective that I feel guilty for bringing it up, more that I think S1 felt strongly unique compared to what came after. And I think it was very intentional of Lauren Faust to limit the scope to slice-of-life in this way. But even now I have some self-doubt, because maybe all that S1 stuff could be seen as character growth in some ways. I keep tripping over how to define it, gah. But I do feel strongly that it was some kind of Eastern storytelling influence to make the stories about examining character relationships, rather than growth as individuals. I think it sticks out as not-usual.
I think all this stems from me trying to figure out for years how slice-of-life stories tick, and how to execute them well. I always saw them being called "fluff". I don't have all the answers, but I think character growth is incompatible with this genre. Not that it must be completely absent, which might be impossible/unrealistic, but it can't be the story's arc supporting everything. I think it relies on something else entirely to work well. Maybe some of this, but I think there's more I'm missing.
(I mentioned this to Axis of Rotation in the comments of a recent post so apologies for recycling myself) One weird example I can think of is the Wachowski's Speed Racer movie, which is certainly not slice of life. The story arc is very strange, because it all appears to build up to the protagonist having to grow up and become a cynic to survive, but then he stops and resists it. The big finale is him understanding he was always powerful (kind of an eastern enlightenment theme that the Wachowskis like to write, such as in the Matrix, though it's actually murkier there). Basically, he pulls an Applejack and goes "I didn't learn anything! I was right all along!".... which in retrospect sticks out a lot compared to the rest of season 2. (I used to think that episode was flawed because of that. Now I kinda like it.)
Sorry this was so rambling, and doesn't properly answer the original question. I feel a little self-doubt on all this myself, so I hope this at least sheds some light on my thinking process. Again, I really don't mean to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't write! But I think understanding the alternatives can be very valuable, even for those don't change their minds. I mean I love reading good character growth too.
Twilight's rise to power over the course of MLP:FiM.
For starters, there's no necessary reason for a coming-of-age character growth story in the show at all: if anything, it runs counter to its message. Its main message right from the beginning was that friends come in all shapes and sizes, and that people/ponies should embrace diversity and learn to get along with each other. There's no need to change yourself into a bland single ideal of a good person and call it "progress". If there's any meaningful character growth to come out of that premise, Twilight already went through it in the series premiere and spent the rest of the season applying it to various contexts.
It works well for an episodic ensemble show which can switch genres at a whim to keep things interesting. It doesn't work that well for a Destiny's Chosen "character growth" arc where Twilight's alleged equality and immersion with the rest of the cast is increasingly compromised in favour of billing her up as the head of her own Friendship title, castle, missionary map, disciple(s), school, and nation.
Even on its own terms, it's not even really an insightful journey: since Friendship is Good, and Destiny Says So, nearly everything Twilight does is going to work out well in-universe, and her opponents are either converted to her cause or removed because they're Obviously Bad. There's hardly any point at which Twilight is treated as just one imperfect soul among many who don't have a special claim to answers; what few flaws she has are either irrelevant one-offs or just minor impediments to her overall ascent to bland incorruptible pure goodness.
But even if the arc had been achieved with knuckle-biting drama and knockout insight, it still would be a structural problem that goes against the spirit established in the show, because it's still replacing The Friendship Show with The Twilight Show Plus Lots Of Halftime Entertainment. The very structure of the show emphasizes the premieres and finales as the main game-changers, increasingly at odds with the jumparound slice-of-life format, especially when Twilight is almost always the main focal character in those two-parters, which only really fits in that aforementioned dedicated "character growth" sense.
It's the difference between "breadth/depth" (How diverse is the cast? How complex are their layers?) and "length" (How far and how fast can this character journey? How close to an ultimate goal/ideal will they get?).
In fact, the architecture metaphor works especially well here, because the show provided a perfect exemplar: that characteristic, modest yet intellectually relevant tree library, so perfect for Twilight's character, getting axed off and replaced by an overwhelmingly charmless crystalline eyesore more at home in Pink Princess Cadence's Crystal Empire than anywhere near Ponyville.