Character Improvement, taken for granted?

[Mike Holmes]

Right. For Champions this was called the "Radiation Accident". However, in that text they just sugggested saving up for it. The problem becomes incentivizing such. Perhaps if each point so invested were doubled. That would give a lot of incentive to find such a master (or have such an accident).

Perhaps too much. As a pacing thing, perhaps the player would have to save up some fraction of the points before hand.

Also, once achieving mastery, how long does the character have before his dramatic potential is over. Can anyone give an example from literature of a character that takes a while to become powerful, and then spends a long time being powerful? Isn't the trip the point of such a character?

Mike

[Jack Spencer Jr]

So it sounds like you're drawing a distinction, Jack, between character advancement per se, where resources are accrued or abilities increased, and an arc of character development that is dynamic, and has dramatic tension. The purpose you talk about transforms a character's history from an acquisition fest to a heroic quest.

Excatly. I think I'm mostly drawing this distinction because the term hero-quest had been thrown around a bit, mostly in the "character advancement is like the hero-quest" sense, but it's only a superficial similarity.

Hmm.  I think there is some degree to which Luke having these three stages is simply a product of his appearing in exactly three movies.  For example, Harry Potter definitely develops, but I don't think you can as easily break down the 4+ books into these three stages.

There's a possibility of that with Luke. But I really don't know. I never read Campell, as I had said so I don't know if what I had said is according to Hoyle. I suppose it could be argued that luke's "The boy shows promise" stage ended when Obi Wan decided to attempt to train him, you know before he died. Which means that for a decent chunk of Star Wars Luke is in the Not Ready Yet phase. Likewise, the entire Harry Potter series could be seen as an exstended "Not Ready Yet" phase. What purpose he's getting "ready" for, we don't know yet or if there actually is one. This might be seen as the multiple purpose you mentioned.

Maybe someone who had actually read Campell should comment.

[clehrich]

Maybe someone who had actually read Campell should comment.

I think this is my fault, as I brought him up here.  I sort of thought a lot of people would be likely to have read The Hero with a Thousand Faces.  If not, then there's no point in continuing the example.  I'm not going to try to do a brief summary of a complex (and debated) model, in order to apply it to Star Wars, in order then to apply it to RPGs.  If you care, Lucas has actually done an interview about his use of Campbell's model, and I presume that the transcript is on the Web somewhere.

[M. J. Young]

Can anyone give an example from literature of a character that takes a while to become powerful, and then spends a long time being powerful? Isn't the trip the point of such a character?

It is possible that Star Wars might be such a model; the jury is still out. It's difficult to say because the series isn't done, and none of us viewed it in "the right order".

Clearly, Anakin Skywalker is a character who spent a lot of time becoming powerful (the first three movies), and then spent a lot of time being powerful (the second trilogy, the one everyone saw first). Of course, he's not a hero; maybe in this he doesn't count. However, Jack has already used Luke Skywalker as his model for the character who goes from having potential to being not ready to being powerful, and the news on the series is that Lucas has informed Mark Hamill that he's expected on the set to film Star Wars VII pretty soon, so he's going to continue to be powerful for at least a while longer, it seems--unless, of course, he's going to do the ghost mentor thing Obi-wan did.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Also, once achieving mastery, how long does the character have before his dramatic potential is over. Can anyone give an example from literature of a character that takes a while to become powerful, and then spends a long time being powerful? Isn't the trip the point of such a character?  

The example from Ninja Hero was for martial arts heroes, where it suggests a big power-up early on and then a long time being powerful.  However, I'm not that well-versed in martial arts heroes other than Wong Fei Hung.  Let me toss out a bunch of long-term heroes from serial-type fiction.  Off the top of my head: Horatio Hornblower, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman, James Bond.  

Hornblower as I recall is a fairly steady rise in power over the series.  In contrast, Holmes is pretty much static.  Tarzan quickly becomes powerful but I think gets incrementally more superhuman in later stories.  Superman and James Bond also start out masterful but definitely grow majorly in power compared to the early stories (I am thinking of the cinematic James Bond here).

[ADGBoss]

Also, once achieving mastery, how long does the character have before his dramatic potential is over. Can anyone give an example from literature of a character that takes a while to become powerful, and then spends a long time being powerful? Isn't the trip the point of such a character?

Mike

Well taking from RPG literature, I would say R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden is a good example.  If you put all the Prequals and Sequals in line of proper order, after his jounrey through the Under Dark, although he gains more knowkledge of the world, his prowess in battle is superior to everyone else and that never really changes.  Of course I have missed a few of the more recent books so maybe it has changed.

Sean
ADGBoss

[Mike Holmes]

I'm dubious of most of these examples. I am familiar with Campbells work (the Bill Moyers tapes have him talking about Star Wars quite a bit, and I believe he was even on the set for part of the filming of the first trillogy), and his Hero has very specific attributes. Superman, Holmes, Tarzan, Drizzt (ick), none of them have these characteristics. Superman hass no history except that which is added later in explanatory mode. Holmes has no build up, he's superman from day one as well (and, unsurprisingly one of my favorite characters).

Tarzan's growth is discussed in one chapter, IIRC, and has little to do with the plot other than as setup for the story. His is a story of a lost heritage, not of growth. Drizzt..eh..can't believe he was even brought up with these others. The power creep on pulp characters like Tarzan and Superman is a bad thing, not a good one. It comes from multiple writers taking control of the character and needing to outdo the previous author. There are better ways. One's that don't lead to the Crisis of Infinite Earths.

Bond never changes. His tech gets better, and the directors get bigger budgets, but Bond is Bond because Bond is Bond. Nothing appeals more than his consistency. He can lose a wife, a best friend, whatever. In the end he'll have offed the badguy and his henchmen, and have another girl in the sack. How can he grow? "Nobody does it better."

As for Luke Skywalker, it's not unimportant that Lucas shot the films in the order that he did. Luke's story gets told in the second trilogy (the first to be released), and as such, his story in the third trilogy will be that of a different character, almost certainly one who's much older (how genius is that; actually wait for the actors to age to the appropriate age before casting them as the same characters many years later). As such, this is a sequel, really, not a serial.

The point is that the action of all these stories either does not involve their development during the main portaion of the plot, or if it does, the story ends with the character reaching full development.

Horblower is the right model. Note how his story is serial, however, not fragmented. It's very much the soap opera model. If we want to look for characters who grow and then remain powerful later, we need to look at the Hornblower model, not the Skywalker model.

Mike

[John Kim]

The power creep on pulp characters like Tarzan and Superman is a bad thing, not a good one. It comes from multiple writers taking control of the character and needing to outdo the previous author. There are better ways. One's that don't lead to the Crisis of Infinite Earths.  

Well, I know basically nothing about Superman or his crises.  However, it seems to me that there is definite power creep just in the Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan books.  Maybe you think that you can do better than ERB, but I'll go out on a limb and say that this steady improvement is perfectly valid and can be done well.   It's not the only way to do things, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.  

Bond never changes. His tech gets better, and the directors get bigger budgets, but Bond is Bond because Bond is Bond. Nothing appeals more than his consistency. He can lose a wife, a best friend, whatever. In the end he'll have offed the badguy and his henchmen, and have another girl in the sack. How can he grow? "Nobody does it better."  

I'd agree with this.  Another way to put this is that Bond does not develop (i.e. he stays the same in terms of drama) but he does improve (i.e. capable of more spectacular stunts, possessed of more powerful devices).  I think this mainly falls under the pulp character power creep.  

I would guess that this is reasonably well handled by existing mechanics like the Hero System.  The model there is generally to start characters out already quite heroic, and the XP gains are very small compared to the total.  The creep is only really noticeable after many adventures.  I use a similar model for my Vinland game.  

Hornblower is the right model. Note how his story is serial, however, not fragmented. It's very much the soap opera model. If we want to look for characters who grow and then remain powerful later, we need to look at the Hornblower model, not the Skywalker model.

OK, here's a thought for Hornblower-like improvement.  Rather than getting and spending XP with each session, the player defines a largish lump of stuff (perhaps comparable to a level in D&D) which she thinks of as how her PC will grow.  This guides the story development.  The PC only receives the package when the story reaches a point where that growth now makes sense.

[Mike Holmes]

Actually I was thinking that the Slow growth starting from low level was the thing that the Hornblower model had hit. That is, I thought we were trying to find a dramatic mode that fit the old school method of character improvement. And I'd agree that Hornblower is the only character from literature that I've seen that fits the model.

Which means not that we need a new system for that model, but that to use the old system effectively we need to employ the ideas from the Hornblower literature. And lo, I think we've got it. Hornblower's compatriots as he begins are the other midshipmen (actually don't they mostly pic on him?). Anyhow, in a game with multiple characters you'd have players each playing their own midshipmen (or similar characters) through first the trials of that position, and later the demands of being an officer.

What do we see here? Well, there is an overarching organization keeping the characters together and being the measure of their development, even after they've become important. And you see this in many RPGs. GMs start the players out as the teens of a village, or the like. The characters who begin more powerfull are mentors who later become allies as the young characters pass them in proficiency.

This would be a good Sim way to use power progression, potentially. Still, I'd keep it as in-game and social as possible.

Hey, Max (AKA Balbinus), can you tell us about your Privateers and Gentlemen game, and how "advancement" works? IIRC, it's really all in game stuff, and the competition for it is actually pretty Gamist.

Mike

[contracycle]

Hmm, I have some quibbles.  I may have read a hornblower novel once, and I did recently see an episode the Brit TV series thats current.  But, I think this approach opens up a monstrous can of worms:
1) Hornblower has a value-system approrpiate to the setting
2) historical verity and artistic license are not challenged by multiple authors
3) Hornblower is really in a form burecaratic career progression rather than personal growth.*
4) related to this is a certain element of social criticism inherent to the modern viewer
5) Horblower is capable of engaging appropriately with his problems**

So, while I think that a Hornblower RPG both could be done and should be done, to my mind it will need quite a radical re-approach to design.  IMO, the above bears little resemblance to the "wandering looter" model so common in actual play.  The central question comes down to this: is Hornblowers naval context the subject of play, or just a bit of character definition?  For the game to focus gere, it would need to be former and designed accordingly.

* and thus can be contrasted with those who achieved rank through birth, wealth or connections.  Career progression <> character growth; Hornblower may well become more effective in bureacratic terms, but whteher his personal kills improve is more open to doubt.  Perhaps they do - but I doubt this is a focus of Hornblowers activities as they were in, say, Enders Game.

** Hornblower is equipped with an internalised understanding of his social context and its class structure; has been trained in naval warfighting, and can navigate.  Of these, only one is likely to have detailed mechanical implementation in RPG.

[Mike Holmes]

Most of your points, Gareth, are exactly what I was getting at. That is, to have a game in which you use the more traditional powering up advancement that you often see, and have it be coherent with Sim play, you need to have some of the elements that you find in Hornblower. You are very correct that the wandering looter is the wrong dramatic context for this sort of thing to work. You need the structure and value system built into the system somehow.

OTOH, though a lot of Hornblower's progress is measured in terms of his ascendance up through th ranks, he also personally improves a tremendous amount. He goes from being a nearly timid midshipman with a lot of potential in terms of dilligence, but little real ability, to a confident ship captain of not just sufficient talent, but later a heroic level of ability. The social structure growth is paralleled by the personal skill development. He gets better at a number of classic RPG talents like Navigation, Leadership, and Tactics, stuff that comes out in the stories ( I have to admit that I've only done the cliffs notes on the literaure, and am going mostly from TV).

So, the effective parameters of Horblower's character and environment are exactly what you need to have to make such a game, one that wants to be Sim, but also wants to have traditional character improvement in it's design.

All this said, I think that we've gone a long way to find an operative model. There may be others, but I suspect that they are just as difficult to ferret out. My overall point would be, unless you find that your design somehow is heading directly towards something that you can see is going to be supported by such a system, go for something else.

Just how I see it.

And BTW, as I hinted, the game has already been created, it's called Privateers and Gentlemen. FGU, I think, from the wayback.

Mike

[Valamir]

An absolutely fantastic game trapped in the unfortuneate body of the FGU house engine, which relied on poor organization, horribly primitive layout, arcane abbreviations for everything (reading an FGU game is like reading newspaper classified...they were obsessed with cutting word count) and tons of crunchy bits about 1/2 - 2/3s of which are the kind of setting specific crunchy bits that make genre emulation fans like me drool profusely and the rest were the endless trivial minutia that "just play already" people like me find unbearable.  <in case it isn't obvious I have a long standing love hate relationship with FGU>

The full box set also contained the single best set of age of sail sailing rules for table top minis play ever written (although the gunnery and damage tracking rules were weak).  

At any rate, I've read all of the Hornblower books about 8 times and the A&E special were surprisingly accurate.  They rearranged the order of some critical points, compress a few characters together and such, but on the whole it was a faithful adaptation in the same sense that Peter Jacksons LotR is a faithful adaptation...in spirit if not in every detail.

[Mike Holmes]

And?

(Mike points back at the rest of the thread wondering if Ralph will comment on the subject as it pertains to P&G and Hornblower)