[Fading Suns] How to help a disconnected player

[adamsmith]

In our Fading Suns campaign, one of the players has a priest (Eskatonic) but he increasingly seems to be at variance with the character type.  I've provided all sorts of religious hooks, from providing confessions to exorcisms to marriages but over the last couple of sessions it's almost as though he sees those things as chores rather than opportunities.

We do have some violence every couple of sessions or so (which he is weak at), but I always provide tools for the non combat characters to use.

One problem is that he was originally conceived of as the confessor to the group noble, but the noble is growing more and more irreligious.

Any ideas?

[Lisa Padol]

Ask him pointblank what he wants.

-Lisa

[tetsujin28]

Maybe he's simply bored with the character? Had you run the game before? I often find that the first PC I make will be discarded somewhere along the line. I had that happen in the 7th Sea game I was in. I just couldn't figure out anything to do with him. So I handed him over to the GM as an NPC, and started anew.

[Kaare Berg]

Got to go with Lisa, Ask him what he wants, and what he sees his character doing.

Where he wants him to go and all that.

That should drag him in

[Pyske]

Bear in mind that he chose to be Eskatonic, not Orthodox.  In my experience, this tend to indicate that the player is more interested in the "mage" type than the "priest" type.  In fact, in the priests sourcebook the chapter on Eskatonics is called "subtle and quick to anger" (c.f. JRR Tolkien, regarding wizards).  Does the player respond well to esoteric mysteries, forbidden or slightly heretical knowledge, ancient secrets, mysticism, etc.?

For anyone unfamiliar with Fading Suns, the general stereotypes for the priesthood are:

+ Orthodox: administrators / preachers
+ Brothers Battle: crusaders / warrior priests
+ Amaltheans: healers
+ Avestites: inquisitors
+ Eskatonic: secret keepers / mystics

 . . . . . . . -- Eric

[adamsmith]

Hmmm.....food for thought.

I'll have a chat with him about what he sees as important to his character.  We haven't had much in the way of occult mystery up until now....maybe that's the problem.

[Valamir]

Hmmm.....food for thought.

I'll have a chat with him about what he sees as important to his character.  We haven't had much in the way of occult mystery up until now....maybe that's the problem.

Did you get together as a group to collectively create these characters based on what the central situation in the game was to be?  Or did he create the character on his own and bring it to play with just a modest amount of GM consulting.

The problem you describe is pretty common with the latter method of character creation.  Its much rarer in the former.  With group character creation based around situation, you wouldn't have the problem of an Eskatonic Priest in a game without much occult mystery (as a general rule) because the players would be working together with the GM to frame the situation and if the situation was one that didn't involve occult mystery, the group collectively would steer away from a character type whose niche is occult mystery.

Tetsujin's comment is also right along these lines.  When characters are brought to the table largely blind (or with minimal consultation) its pretty common to not have any clear reason for them being involved in play.  Second characters often click much better because the player can create them with full knowledge of what the situation is and who the other characters are.

If instead you start the game with everyone having full knowledge of the situation and each others characters you can avoid the "bum first character" syndrome.

I know that doesn't help you much here.  But food for thought for your next game.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Here's some thoughts on the situation you're describing.

What's interesting to the character is not an issue. The issue is what's interesting to the player.

Therefore, when I read, in the posts above, "Ask the player what he wants," I don't see "Provide stuff 'an Eskatonic would like' into the scenarios" as a possible answer.

Perhaps the player wants sexual opportunities for the character. Perhaps the player wants more fight scenes. Perhaps the player wants the game-content to concern deep, hidden family conflicts. Perhaps the player wants more "stuff like shopping and meals" to occur. I'm just making this stuff up off the top of my head.

The point is that none of the above have much to do with whether he's playing an Eskatonic or not. They have to do with what the actual person wants to spend his time on, while role-playing.

I think that "Ask the player what he wants" is excellent advice. But I also think that it's very different advice from "Construct plot hooks for the character based on his rules-niche and textual class-description."

Does that idea seem interesting, or perhaps raise any questions for you?

Best,
Ron

[adamsmith]

I hadn't really thought of it that way.
I've tended to try and visualise a given character according to how they are put together - through skills, personality statements, back story and so on, and write to that.
I guess I've always thought that a player will create a character that they will enjoy, rather than creating one that is at odds with their own desires.  In the case of this player, he came late to the group, and it's entirely possible that the choice he made was beased on his perception of what he thought the group needed rather than taking a character that he wanted.
I'll have a chat with him and sort it out.  Fortunately none of our group is particularly over-sensistive...

[tetsujin28]

I know I've been criticised for this, but I strongly believe in giving the players what they want. My enjoyment of an rpg comes from my player's enjoyment, not from what I think is 'cool'. I would sit down with the player and ask him:
What made you play an Eskatonic?
Are you interested in esoterica? If so, what mysteries about the Fading Suns universe interests you, the player?
Did you make this PC because he/she is what you felt the group needed?
What sort of character would you choose to play if this wasn't an issue, ever?
If you are interested in the point of view/dynamic an Eskatonic brings to the group, what especially piques your interest?
What situations in my game excite/bore you, the player?

[Pyske]

What's interesting to the character is not an issue. The issue is what's interesting to the player.

Therefore, when I read, in the posts above, "Ask the player what he wants," I don't see "Provide stuff 'an Eskatonic would like' into the scenarios" as a possible answer.

I'm going to half disagree with you here, Ron, and provide a little context for the approach I took in my response.

I agree completely with your first sentiment:  I agree that the goal is to find what is interesting to the player.  I probably wasn't clear enough in that agreement.

The reason I made comments regarding the character and their (stereo-)typical niche, is that I have many times run into players who are unwilling or unable to answer point-blank questions about what they want from a game.

Since the "ask him what he wants" comments had already been made (and that was my first reaction as well), I wanted to provide some additional analysis in case that advice did not prove sufficient.

Like tetsujin28, I always ask, and I make it clear to the players that if they want something in the game, I will accomodate as far as I'm able within the bounds of group enjoyment.  I also proactively ask questions about what people want and whether they are interested in given aspects of play.

However, I frequently get the equivalent of an uncomfortable shrug and a mumbled "I dunno".  In those cases, I try to interpret what might interest the player about the character.  This is common enough (for me) that I tend to provide it as the default follow-up clause after "Ask them what they want."

 . . . . . . . -- Eric