Choice of Characters -- Mainly Sidekicks?

[contracycle]

I have had severe problems with this sort of play, aslthough I conceptualised this as the "disengaged" character, the voluntary stranger in a strange land.  The most striking example occurred when setting up my first celtic-themed game in a setting entirely of my own creation - I knew for certain this would be alien and interesting to the players but still one wanted to play "someone from somewhere else".  He explained this partially as a defense against asusmed knowledge - he could then ask questions IC - but in the light of this players broader character choices I reckon the character was chosen becuase it would be uncommitted and free to engage or disengage at will.  This is valid, but uselerss to a GM - this is a character who is actively avoiding becoming protagonised, or at least can only be protagonised in the stranger-inna-strange-land scenario.

I think many players, in the sense that RP is a wish fulfillment thing, seek an experience of the free agent.  I suspect that what my be attractive about the Smoking Man is that he is an agent of change but does not appear as restricted as Mulder and Scully, bound by bureucratic intransigence.  Similarly the Man With No Name rides out of and then back into the sunset without ever becoming committed, their actions motivated by personal history rather than situational need.

Eventually the character I mentioned became a destructive influence - I was having t run exactly the sort of game I had NOT wanted to run to deal with the players constant "why should I".  I had to default to bribery but even there the reward system I had prepared - promotion in rank - was not interesting to this character who was only interested in extremely portable chattels.  And the commitment to internal continuity of character prevented the evolution of this PC into someone more engaged in their surroundings as it would have done to a real person in the real world.

I have on occassion done this myself, on being exposed to a totally new group whose play style I knew nothing about in a new game.  Here I deliberately opted out, but equally I knew I had no commitment to the character and ditched it for another after 5 or 6 sessions.  Perhaps partly it arises from the confrontational nature of old school games, in which social systems had no utility and only existed as mechanisms for the GM to produce plot devices.  In this case being hermetically sealed from the motivating factors in the Situation is good gamist sense.  I think of this as one of the "bad habbits" we inherited.  To a large extent I think that games which pre-cast characters in a subset of a setting work better ion this regard, in that the focussed nature of their setup to some degree compels and to some degree encourages commitment, through both greater definition and greater proportional influence such contacts wield.

[contracycle]

One reason I think players may base characthers off side kicks is that protagonists are to well know, to well developed. A jedi based off of Luke would be seen as 'derivative' or 'poor role playing'.

In fact, a very old gaming buddy of mine is persecuted to this day for doing exactly that - he is disparagingly referred to as "Luke" behind his back and I would not mention this if I feared for a moment he was reading this board.  This has been going on for oh, 16 years or so IIRC.

[Mike Holmes]

I think many players, in the sense that RP is a wish fulfillment thing, seek an experience of the free agent.  I suspect that what my be attractive about the Smoking Man is that he is an agent of change but does not appear as restricted as Mulder and Scully, bound by bureucratic intransigence.  Similarly the Man With No Name rides out of and then back into the sunset without ever becoming committed, their actions motivated by personal history rather than situational need.

Eventually the character I mentioned became a destructive influence - I was having t run exactly the sort of game I had NOT wanted to run to deal with the players constant "why should I".  I had to default to bribery but even there the reward system I had prepared - promotion in rank - was not interesting to this character who was only interested in extremely portable chattels.  And the commitment to internal continuity of character prevented the evolution of this PC into someone more engaged in their surroundings as it would have done to a real person in the real world.

I have on occassion done this myself, on being exposed to a totally new group whose play style I knew nothing about in a new game.  Here I deliberately opted out, but equally I knew I had no commitment to the character and ditched it for another after 5 or 6 sessions.  Perhaps partly it arises from the confrontational nature of old school games, in which social systems had no utility and only existed as mechanisms for the GM to produce plot devices.  In this case being hermetically sealed from the motivating factors in the Situation is good gamist sense.  I think of this as one of the "bad habbits" we inherited.

This is, of course, simply good examples and description of what has been refered to as "My Guy" stance. Named because in play a player will often defend his decision on what his character does (or fails to do, often) by saying, "It's what My Guy would do!" And, yes, it's generally accepted that this usually arises from dysfunctional gamism early in the player's experience.

Mike

[lehrbuch]

Hello,

...To a large extent I think that games which pre-cast characters in a subset of a setting work better ion this regard, in that the focussed nature of their setup to some degree compels and to some degree encourages commitment, through both greater definition and greater proportional influence such contacts wield.

Which is, I think, a good description of how a character class system *should* work.

[Julian Kelsey]

But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters. What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

I'm thinking in terms of a game that tries to balance player involvement by balancing character capacity. Ending up with every character aimed at being some sort of hero.

There are lots of widely played commercial games where assessing and balancing character effectiveness is a goal of the system. So I was thinking  at a tangent from the main part of this thread and how to provide for a player who in the strict sense of those systems doesn't want to play a typically powerful character, but equally doesn't want to be scratched from play when things get tough?

I see that some approximate balance of character effectiveness is one tool that can help players feel free to be involved, some notion that everything is fair and so they can fairly be involved. The rpg equivalent of uniform equipment for soldiers.

I think this is a false parallel.  I have (on at least one occasion) worked to prove that these are not a good fit.  Giving someone the capability will not make them use it.  Balancing efficacy would only work if everyone were equally motivated.

I was specifically talking about comic characters with the idea that the player had a technically under-powered character concept, but still wanted to be involved. Not giving capabilities to players will certainly discourage many from being involved.

One source of humour is the unlikely success of the fish out of water, so give the player a margin for unlikely successes (unlikely because of lower apparent effectiveness), which on average would be as effective as a more typical character (equivalent effective values); letting them be apparently less capable while having an up side lurking in the mechanics.

There is humour (and pathos) in the opposite approach: create character with a higher apparent values but lower effective values.

I think it would be better to equip the group with tools to manipulate involvement when 'it does not fit' for them, and information to make them sensitive to this situation.  Mechanically forcing involvement is antithetical to fun, I think (in some cases, at least).

I wasn't trying to mandate involvement, but rather considering the case of strict adherence to rules that worked against involvement of an unlikely but fun character. A tool for a particular type of poor fit between concept and system.

In this case we have a willing thirsty horse, but where do we find water for it?

Cheers,
Julian Kelsey.

[Le Joueur]

I think it would be better to equip the group with tools to manipulate involvement when 'it does not fit' for them, and information to make them sensitive to this situation.  Mechanically forcing involvement is antithetical to fun, I think (in some cases, at least).

I wasn't trying to mandate involvement, but rather considering the case of strict adherence to rules that worked against involvement of an unlikely but fun character. A tool for a particular type of poor fit between concept and system.

In this case we have a willing thirsty horse, but where do we find water for it?

It's "Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink," is it?  I think we're attacking two different problems.  You gouge systems that restrict; I bolster systems that empower.

A round of drinks is in order!  Tapwater for everyone, on me!

Fang Langford

[xiombarg]

Here's a link that might be of interest to the people on this thread:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=roleplayers&itemid=244636&view=1695644

[contracycle]

Very interesting.  Maybe we've stumbled onto something else, then.  I have a question I'd like to ask, then: does leadership emerge in your games?

You know to an extent, when you are sitting there are the players are engaged, scheming away and talking amongst themselves, you-as-GM almost fade into the background, a bit like an anthropologist crouched under a bush watching gorillas or something.  One of the things I have noticed from this vantage point is the emergence of a sort of consensual system, in which one person will be left as final arbiter.  Proposition and challenge will fly about, but eventually someone says "we'll do X" and X is duly done.

Perhaps it was just an alpha emerging among the teenage males, and to some extent that was true in the broader context.  OTOH, I wonder if people who know they have such a player feel free to make sidekick characters.  Or is it just a feature of the human group which, in its shared environment, operates somewhat autonomously from the broader social context and hence develops an independenat dynamic?

Do others find that some players are the "life of the game" and others are relative wall flowers?  Do you think the behaviour changes over time?  Do you think its inherent to the person or a property of the pseudo-autonomous dynamic?  Have you ever found a game loses its sparkle, doesn;t work, wiothout a certain player?

To this end, I'd be inclined to suggest/request responses to the questions posed in this link above here.  I'd have replied there  but anonymous postying is disabled, and anyway I'd be interested to see the forges answers.

1) When you first create a character, do you consciously consider how it's likely to function in relation to other PCs?

No, not at the start of a new game.  If introducing a replacement character and I have good working knowledge of the existing PC's, I will think about the relationships that will likely develop and whether or not I'm overlapping someones competence niche.  I might even say that a character doesn't really gel for me in these circumstances until I have an idea of how they will interact with other characters.

2) Do you generally think of your characters as stars in their own story, part of other characters' stories, or members of an equal team?

2) Not exactly, equal team is probably closest.  I seldom consciously think of other characters as having stories.  When I do think about it its a conscious diversion into the "all getting along" metagme department.

3) Would you be content playing an otherwise involving and well-run campaign where the main focus was always on someone else's personal plotline, and you were just helping them achieve their private goals rather than concentrating on your own?

Yes, if it was good.  I've had partial success GMing such a game too, something which started as a one player game and then expanded to incorporate others.  Some good and some bad to it, but it was early days and I'd be interested to try it again, with willing players.

4) Does it vary widely from game to game whether you're playing a leader or a follower, or do you tend to stick to roughly the same sorts of roles?

It varies, but leadership roles more often than not I'd say.  I've had some very good experiences with specialist, niche filling characters though and I sometimes seek out that role - in fact to an extent this kinda alternates with leader characters, now that I think about it.

5) Have you ever played a character that was completely subserviant to another PC (a squire, servant, ghoul, etc.) for any length of time? Did you enjoy it, or did it become frustrating?

Yes, several, I find them quite good fun.  In  fact I quite like structures of this nature among the players, having some sot of "official" relationship which they break out of as actual peers, which is actually useful in settling in-game disputes, in my experience.  Its a sim vent for something that might otherwise be personal.  I have sometimes exploited this for comic effect - if someones youre boss they're responsible for your actions, right? :)  I've seen a lot of players do it, partly at my instigation, and they have used it in so many interesting ways that everyone is totally comfortable with it.

6) In considering the above, does it make a significant difference to you whether you're playing in a tabletop game or a LARP?

NA

[Mike Holmes]

One of the things I have noticed from this vantage point is the emergence of a sort of consensual system, in which one person will be left as final arbiter.  Proposition and challenge will fly about, but eventually someone says "we'll do X" and X is duly done.

Odldly enough this was an official position in early D&D. The "Caller" was a player assigned to drive the action. Other players could pipe up whenever they liked, but it was up to the Caller to declare any group actions, like moving down a corridor. Essentially, the Caller declared everything that everyone did, and players then declared exceptions to this general activity in terms of their characters particular activity.

In theory. In practice it wasn't done very often. This becasue there was rarely any decision on who would be the caller. Given that there was often player competition, and that somethimes there was a player who was off on his own, the caller thing rarely worked as advertised (In cheesy examples in the DMG, etc).

Which is not to say that it's not an idea that can't be examined. I think that there's definitely some interesting stuff to bee found in examining player roles.

5) Have you ever played a character that was completely subserviant to another PC (a squire, servant, ghoul, etc.) for any length of time? Did you enjoy it, or did it become frustrating?

This question can be misleading. For example, I played a ghoul in a WOD game, and though completely a subservient character, he had a powerful story. My point is that character relationships do not have an automatic impact on Protagonism.

Mike

[contracycle]

Yes, indeed.  In which case - single protagonist stories with a supporting cast might very well work in RPG.