My Character Would

[Gordon C. Landis]

My impression is that "characters don't exist" thinking tends to not look for this sort of solution.  Maybe that's not what you meant, though?

Emphatically the opposite - I see "character's don't exist" as fascilitating this very kind of solution.  My example player was an instance of this - his character was a problem for the group, and all the solutions were running into "but that's just not like him!"  By realizing there was no "him," and identifying the really important aspects of the character for the player, solutions that addressed the problem but didn't "break" the player's interest in the character were now possible.

I think differences amongst the players is mostly an independant issue: it exists, or doesn't, as a seperate problem.  The issue here is differences between a player(s) and a fictional construct - that is a negotiation that just can't happen.  The player's can negotiate ABOUT the fictional construct, as opposed to negotiating about each others personal opinions, views, etc. - sure, that can be a good technique.  But if some/all involved are treating that fictional construct as a valid party in the negotiation in and of itself (as opposed to something which one might have desires, even requirements for), there's a problem.  I think.

Gordon

[John Kim]

My impression is that "characters don't exist" thinking tends to not look for this sort of solution.  Maybe that's not what you meant, though?

Emphatically the opposite - I see "character's don't exist" as fascilitating this very kind of solution.  My example player was an instance of this - his character was a problem for the group, and all the solutions were running into "but that's just not like him!"  By realizing there was no "him," and identifying the really important aspects of the character for the player, solutions that addressed the problem but didn't "break" the player's interest in the character were now possible.

I'd be interested to hear more about this, since our experiences seem to differ.  In particular, I would like to hear about what the problem was, what the eventual solution was, and what other solutions were considered.

[Gordon C. Landis]

OK, a summary - the game is a Dark Sun (TSR's world of Athas) variant, centered on the destroyed city-state of Yaramuke.  If folks are familiar with Dark Sun, I think there is much weirdness here - a module appeared with info on Yaramuke, "official" sources then removed it, etc. etc.  What maters for this example is that a specific bit of the world as envisioned by this GM/group is the center of play, and that the issues we saw/created around and about that location were an agreed focus of play.

All the PCs have some tie to Yaramuke.  There was an initial set of three players, then some months later I joined the game, and then a little later the 5th player joined.  Our 5th guy had a tie to Yaramuke that looked like it was good enough at first, but as time went on, it became clear that it wasn't.  He kept pulling focus out into other areas of Dark Sun (both geographically and thematically), all in a way that was entirely reasonable given his character construction, but which the other players - and #5 himself! - saw as inappropriate to the desired direction of play.  The GM would advance various world-based reasons why it was unwise for the character to pursue these other directions - too much danger, overwhelming opposition, unacceptable consequences - but when player #5 thought about it from a character perspective, it always left him wanting to find ways to overcome those obstacles.  OOC conversations about the issue weren't really helping either.  I mean, this group communicates pretty well, and #5 was fine with considering extreme options like just letting the charcater get killed off and either not participating in this game or trying a different charcater - but we all kinda liked some of what the charcater brought to the game, so we were hoping for a better solution.

There's a fair amount of hidden/mysterious background going on with some of the character's in this game, but #5 was just not like that - more of your simple, up-front kind of guy, kinda exploring the loyal and honorable warrior in the not-always compatible with that context of Athas.  In various conversations, the player eventually realized that it was that loyal and honorable thing that really MATTERED about the character, and that, despite the fact that he'd never imagined anything odd going on with the character's past/parentage/etc., it would be totally OK to add some of that if it would help get him on the same page as the rest of the group.  In fact, he was able (working with the GM on some bits that aren't fully shared with the rest of the group right now, so I don't know all of 'em) to create a mystery that seems to both highlight his character and the general issues (around the destiny of Yaramuke and even - it looks like - Athas as a whole) the rest of the group has been poking at.  

Now, #5 could have decided that his current assumptions about the background of the charcater WERE a key part of what made playing the character interesting to him, and that would (to me) have been a perfectly legitimate preference-based reason to reject the solution.  In this case, it took the ability to stop seeing the character as a fixed entity to allow the alteration - the realization that while he'd assumed the character had no mysteries in his past, that "fact" wasn't something imposed on him by an outside force of some kind.

Hope that answers the questions . . .

Gordon

[John Kim]

The GM would advance various world-based reasons why it was unwise for the character to pursue these other directions - too much danger, overwhelming opposition, unacceptable consequences - but when player #5 thought about it from a character perspective, it always left him wanting to find ways to overcome those obstacles.
...
In various conversations, the player eventually realized that it was that loyal and honorable thing that really MATTERED about the character, and that, despite the fact that he'd never imagined anything odd going on with the character's past/parentage/etc., it would be totally OK to add some of that if it would help get him on the same page as the rest of the group.  In fact, he was able (working with the GM on some bits that aren't fully shared with the rest of the group right now, so I don't know all of 'em) to create a mystery that seems to both highlight his character and the general issues (around the destiny of Yaramuke and even - it looks like - Athas as a whole) the rest of the group has been poking at.  

OK, thanks.  That was helpful to my understanding.  So, in this situation, external changes to the situation were unable to give the warrior (#5's PC) a connection to Yaramuke and its themes.  Instead, it more-or-less required a significant retroactive change/addition to #5's imagined background.  Is that right?  

I've been going through my list of campaigns, but I don't think I've ever done this -- with the important exception of changes within the first 2 or so sessions of play (which I consider a testing period of sorts).  I guess to me, characters exist -- but not very solidly so until they have "gelled", which tends to take a few sessions of play.  Instead, I have always gotten results I am satisfied with by changes to elements external to the character -- like my example earlier about a cruel PC getting a political position (which is a change in social situation that doesn't require any retroactive changes).  

In contrast, you seem to consider such retroactive changes very important.  Probably they aren't common, but vital for the situations where they are called for.  

There are a few bits of your description that stand out to me.  One thing is that you may have a more narrow focus for your campaigns.  Alternatively, you might not have the testing period practice that I do, where characters are scrutinized during the first 2 or 3 sessions, and possibly redesigned if there seems to be a problem.  Lastly, as you describe it, the GM's initial attempt to fix things were setting obstacles to prevent the PC from attaining what he was trying for.  I'm not surprised that that didn't work.  Creating a positive goal is almost always better than creating a deterrent.

[Gordon C. Landis]

John -

Actually, the point here is not that there were retroactive changes, but that "fuzzy" background had an overwhelming influence on what was possible going forward - because the player lost track of the fact that if something is fuzzy, he can choose how to clarify it as gameplay continues.

But let's see, in an extreme retroactive situation . . . let's say the player is 100% clear that his father was a metalsmith who died when he was 12.  The GM suggests that maybe the character is actually the offspring of a god, and the GM, the player, and the group as a whole sees some interesting possibilities in going there.  It would be entirely reasonable for the player to say "yes, but . . . that just feels wrong for this character.  Let's not."  But for me, an immediate reaction of, say, "Merlin can't be the son of a god!" is ALWAYS worth examining in a little more depth - is that just a momentary outburst, maybe triggered by fear of losing control of "your" character, or a maybe by "channeling" of the CHARACTER's reaction that need not be the player's, or . . . a number of other things?

You might come to the conclusion that no, Merlin God-son just doesn't work for me.  But's it's about YOU, not about the character.

On other matters - excellent point about about the negative obstacle vs. positive goal - part of what had this solution work for the player is that there were some very interesting new goals that came along with the deal.  The problem in this campaign (which is defined as a long one, in theory once-twice a month for years, and it was so for about a year, but we - sigh - have failed to meet for over three months now) with ONLY the positive goal is we had just finished such a thing - essentially, a plot line all about the new character that played to his already existing strengths - and that was what people were unhappy about.

Gordon

[Jason Lee]

Gordon & Ralph,

Ah ha!

I'm back from the mountains, and trying to catch up on all these threads.  So, I don't know if I'm repeating here.

I see what you're talking about now.  When I think 'my guy defense' I think power struggle.  Where one player wants to run off contrary to the goals of the rest of the group, possibly with no other purpose than to aggravate the other players.  Oooh...I hate that.

What you were talking about was people stuck in actor stance.  

I've even got a player in my group with this problem.  It's been discussed, openly with all players, and it was left as "You decide if you're playing is by dogma or preference; we'll go from there".  The player always ends up saying things like "There's nothing to do." when everybody else is doing plenty.  The response always being "Then do something."  When I first diagnosed the issue I described it as the players having a bubble around their characters.  They control everything in that bubble, and they don't want you popping it - stay out.  This particular player's bubble is just really small.  You have to drop a motivation on the character to get him to react, he won't make his own - that'd be outside the bubble.  (The group glazes over if I use jargon too much).

Sounds like the same issue.  This player also has a real problem with visualizing environment.  I think it's a related issue on account of environment being outside his control bubble.  I don't have a solid theory about it yet though.

Anyway, now that I think I know what you mean I can agree with the problem existing and also being connected to the myth of reality.  I think I'd phrase the issue a little different, but, eh, whatever works for you.

Pete's got a nice long list of what 'My character would' could mean.  If we can agree that 'my character would' could be functional or dysfunctional, and different forms of function or dysfunction, then I'm a happy camper (being in the mountains makes you say things like that, really, not my fault).  Don't really see that being a problem, as it's already been said ;).

[Gordon C. Landis]

Jason,

Yup, that sounds good to me - I'm not sure "actor stance" is really a full description of the place in which I see people get stuck, but any attempt I make to rephrase what I think you said gets me worried I'll confuse things rather than clarify 'em.  So I guess I'll leave it at that, at least in this thread.  Glad to hear your trip to the montains was fun,

Gordon

EDIT typo on "stuck"