Plot Sucks
We took a break from Deadwood tonight, to watch two episodes of the frothier, less arduous fare that is United States of Tara, but I can't stop thinking about the Old West...
One of the best characters in Deadwood is the camp's physician Doc Cochran, played with most excellent pop-eyed intensity by the mighty Brad Dourif. In the context of the show, that is to say, in an environment in which people happen to exist and are mostly trying to get on with their daily business without much reference to each another (like real life) the Doc is a crucial character. Because only he gets to interact with *everyone* else, rich or poor, noble or despicable, beautiful or ugly. Sooner or later we all need the services of a good doctor, and this seems to go double for a violent, disease-ridden cesspit of a place like Deadwood.
Which got me to thinking: the doctor is an incredible character to keep a drama ticking over, but he would have been rubbish in one of our old society games! Characters in roleplaying games (a) never get seriously ill, because incapacity would stop them from having fun, and (b) even if they did, they would probably rather die than share their precious plot with random others!
Plot operates very differently on TV than in a freeform roleplaying game. In the latter, it's practically currency. The more plot you can get for yourself, the better. You don't necessarily want to deprive others of plot, but you'd much rather do that than be deprived of plot yourself. This is so different from a drama, where such plot as there is exists to provide the characters with something new to react to, and thus stay interesting. No dramatic creation in their right mind would hoard plot - they instantly want, need, to find other characters to share it with.
Deadwood Season 2 seems quite plotless, at least compared to the start of the first season, with its several major events to set the show and characters in motion. But I don't think we need any more plot. The characters are mostly likeable or entertaining to watch, their motivations are known to us, watching them just living their daily lives really is enough. A constant stream of major upheavals and reverses would be exhausting and unnecessary. People keep talking about there only being five or seven or twenty-three plots in fiction for a good reason: plots are generally homogeneous and predictable. Whereas characters are much more varied and interesting!
The difference between drama and roleplaying is often this: roleplayers pretend to be rounded characters within an exciting drama... but in fact they're playing the drama as though it were a boardgames. Whatever guff they spout about RPGs being games without winners or losers, really a lot of roleplayers are trying to win. Getting the most XP and GP was an obvious method of winning D&D; once more sophisticated games like Vampire: The Masquerade came along, though, the only way to win was to amass the lion's share of the plot. Which explains really why roleplaying cheesed me off as often as it delighted me: as a drama/character queen by nature, my instinct was always to share plot around, to do stuff that got as many other people involved and hopefully entertained as possible: since plot is characterisation food. But many roleplayers want to prevent this happening, because secrets are power and they win by holding on to them. Which is fair enough, my arbitrarily selected victory condition is no better than theirs. But it's very tiring when what's meant to be a fun game has to turn into a clash of competing philosophies all the time. I felt I lost most of the roleplaying games I was in, because of the dramatic possibilities constantly being undercut or thrown away completely.
Boardgames at least are honest, with everyone trying to win in the same way! All plot, no characterisation. Which is why, for balance in my life, I like watching TV and reading books that have more character and less plot. (Not just Deadwood - did anything really happen in the first season of Mad Men, at all?) Harmony and balance in my life at last!
One of the best characters in Deadwood is the camp's physician Doc Cochran, played with most excellent pop-eyed intensity by the mighty Brad Dourif. In the context of the show, that is to say, in an environment in which people happen to exist and are mostly trying to get on with their daily business without much reference to each another (like real life) the Doc is a crucial character. Because only he gets to interact with *everyone* else, rich or poor, noble or despicable, beautiful or ugly. Sooner or later we all need the services of a good doctor, and this seems to go double for a violent, disease-ridden cesspit of a place like Deadwood.
Which got me to thinking: the doctor is an incredible character to keep a drama ticking over, but he would have been rubbish in one of our old society games! Characters in roleplaying games (a) never get seriously ill, because incapacity would stop them from having fun, and (b) even if they did, they would probably rather die than share their precious plot with random others!
Plot operates very differently on TV than in a freeform roleplaying game. In the latter, it's practically currency. The more plot you can get for yourself, the better. You don't necessarily want to deprive others of plot, but you'd much rather do that than be deprived of plot yourself. This is so different from a drama, where such plot as there is exists to provide the characters with something new to react to, and thus stay interesting. No dramatic creation in their right mind would hoard plot - they instantly want, need, to find other characters to share it with.
Deadwood Season 2 seems quite plotless, at least compared to the start of the first season, with its several major events to set the show and characters in motion. But I don't think we need any more plot. The characters are mostly likeable or entertaining to watch, their motivations are known to us, watching them just living their daily lives really is enough. A constant stream of major upheavals and reverses would be exhausting and unnecessary. People keep talking about there only being five or seven or twenty-three plots in fiction for a good reason: plots are generally homogeneous and predictable. Whereas characters are much more varied and interesting!
The difference between drama and roleplaying is often this: roleplayers pretend to be rounded characters within an exciting drama... but in fact they're playing the drama as though it were a boardgames. Whatever guff they spout about RPGs being games without winners or losers, really a lot of roleplayers are trying to win. Getting the most XP and GP was an obvious method of winning D&D; once more sophisticated games like Vampire: The Masquerade came along, though, the only way to win was to amass the lion's share of the plot. Which explains really why roleplaying cheesed me off as often as it delighted me: as a drama/character queen by nature, my instinct was always to share plot around, to do stuff that got as many other people involved and hopefully entertained as possible: since plot is characterisation food. But many roleplayers want to prevent this happening, because secrets are power and they win by holding on to them. Which is fair enough, my arbitrarily selected victory condition is no better than theirs. But it's very tiring when what's meant to be a fun game has to turn into a clash of competing philosophies all the time. I felt I lost most of the roleplaying games I was in, because of the dramatic possibilities constantly being undercut or thrown away completely.
Boardgames at least are honest, with everyone trying to win in the same way! All plot, no characterisation. Which is why, for balance in my life, I like watching TV and reading books that have more character and less plot. (Not just Deadwood - did anything really happen in the first season of Mad Men, at all?) Harmony and balance in my life at last!