Polaris: Player Roles

[Ben Lehman]

So my rpg, http://www.balefulengine.com/tsuu/rpg/polaris/polaris.html">Polaris is about to go into playtesting and needs a little help.

One of the big "things" about Polaris is that it doesn't have a normal GM/Player power distribution.  And, while this is clear in my head, I'm really worried that it won't be clear to the rest of mankind, when they have all purchased my RPG.

So -- What I'd really like is someone to read through the text as it stands, at least the rules (setting is optional), and let me know if all the roles are:

1) Clear
2) Non-overlapping
3) Don't miss anything which might be useful in an RPG game

Or, more particularly, where they aren't one of these things.  Including if that's the entire game.

yrs--
--Ben

Edit -- missed a close quote.  Oops.

[Tobias]

Hi Ben,

A quick response:

One of things that struck me as a bit awkward, is the use of PC/NPC. I understand your desire to have players 'play' NPCs, as a backdrop for the PCs, but a player-played NPC (say that 10 times fast) is a bit of a contradiction, right?

For instance, this sentence: "Each player, usually, takes a different role for every knight -- some might play the roles of NPCs..." is a bit tough for me.

I would probably solve that by trying to avoid the whole PC/NPC concept/terminology. You could for your 'protagonist' thing, but another option might be leads/extra's.

Also, these roles might be quite a burden for your players. A suggestion/option I have for you, is the following role distribution, which might make the burden lighter for 3 of your players:

(players 1 through 4 play 4 roles - H, FrM, NM, FuM)

1: H1, FrM2, FrM3, FrM4
2: H2, NM1, NM3, NM4
3: H3, FuM1, FuM2, FuM4
4: H4, FrM1, NM2, FuM3

This will give every player a Protagonist to identify with (Heart), and one clear role for all other Protagonists, except player 4, who fills the gaps.

(of course, you could just have one player be 4 Hearts, one player be 4 Full Moons, etc... but I'm going by gut feeling that everyone wants at least one Heart, since that maps most intuitively to 'my character')

Unfortunately, don't have the time to go into your questions deeper, but this might help clarity.

Good luck,
Tobias

[Ben Lehman]

Hi Ben,

A quick response:

One of things that struck me as a bit awkward, is the use of PC/NPC. I understand your desire to have players 'play' NPCs, as a backdrop for the PCs, but a player-played NPC (say that 10 times fast) is a bit of a contradiction, right?

BL>  You're right here, I think.  My general RPG experience has been that an NPC is any character in the game who isn't a PC, but the whole thing is possibly confusing.

That said, what term do you think is appropriate?  In general, in the Polaris text (perhaps I should have a note about this), I use "player" to describe any participant in the game, "Heart, Frost Maiden, New Moon, Full Moon" to describe the role, "PC" or "Knight" to describe a PC and "NPC" or a specific term to describe non-PC characters.

Perhaps I should just drop the usage of "PC" and "NPC" entirely, and use the specific terms "Man," "Woman," and "Demon" (or "Mistaken") with "supporting character" as a general term?  How does that sound to you?

My inclination is to not reinvent the wheel, term-wise but, at the same time, clarity is foremost.

Also, these roles might be quite a burden for your players. A suggestion/option I have for you, is the following role distribution, which might make the burden lighter for 3 of your players:

(players 1 through 4 play 4 roles - H, FrM, NM, FuM)

1: H1, FrM2, FrM3, FrM4
2: H2, NM1, NM3, NM4
3: H3, FuM1, FuM2, FuM4
4: H4, FrM1, NM2, FuM3

This will give every player a Protagonist to identify with (Heart), and one clear role for all other Protagonists, except player 4, who fills the gaps.

BL> This is also possible.  In fact, the rules aren't totally biased in this regard (heck, you can even have 5-6 players with all sorts of higglety-piggledy...)

However... For me, at least part of the charm of the game is that it allows each player to fill each role in turn.  To me, the Frost Maiden and the Heart are the real "prime roles" and the Moons are definitely supporting.  To this end, I like being able to alternate between the two -- just because it helps and is (to my mind) relaxing.

I'll keep an eye open for this issue in playtest, though.

(of course, you could just have one player be 4 Hearts, one player be 4 Full Moons, etc... but I'm going by gut feeling that everyone wants at least one Heart, since that maps most intuitively to 'my character')

BL>  Note that players and characters don't have to be evenly matched.  You could have one character with four players.  I can tell that I need to be a little more specific about this.

Unfortunately, don't have the time to go into your questions deeper, but this might help clarity.

BL>  Enormously helpful.  Thanks.

yrs--
--Ben

[Tobias]

BL > You're right here, I think.  My general RPG experience has been that an NPC is any character in the game who isn't a PC, but the whole thing is possibly confusing.

That said, what term do you think is appropriate?  In general, in the Polaris text (perhaps I should have a note about this), I use "player" to describe any participant in the game, "Heart, Frost Maiden, New Moon, Full Moon" to describe the role, "PC" or "Knight" to describe a PC and "NPC" or a specific term to describe non-PC characters.

Perhaps I should just drop the usage of "PC" and "NPC" entirely, and use the specific terms "Man," "Woman," and "Demon" (or "Mistaken") with "supporting character" as a general term?  How does that sound to you?

Protagonist (if all your characters are classical heroes) might be one, 'extra' or 'supporting character' might work for your NPCs.

My inclination is to not reinvent the wheel, term-wise but, at the same time, clarity is foremost.

I understand the desire to not re-invent the wheel, but your deliberately playing around with a player playing the supporting cast. In that case, tossing the 'old' descriptions overboard might be a good thing.

You want to convey the message of 'core' characters in the story, I guess. Heck, you could fudge that by making PC a shorthand for 'Protagonist Character' and NPC ... wait for it.... 'Non-Protagonist Character'. Then your players would intuitively slip back into the 'correct' appreciation of the relative importance of PC and NPC. :)

BL> This is also possible.  In fact, the rules aren't totally biased in this regard (heck, you can even have 5-6 players with all sorts of higglety-piggledy...)

However... For me, at least part of the charm of the game is that it allows each player to fill each role in turn.  To me, the Frost Maiden and the Heart are the real "prime roles" and the Moons are definitely supporting.  To this end, I like being able to alternate between the two -- just because it helps and is (to my mind) relaxing.

I'll keep an eye open for this issue in playtest, though.

Just as easy, of course, to ask each player whether (s)he likes certain roles - or mixing them. There's many combinations that would work - my suggestion is primarily for players that might be overwhelmed by having to learn how to play 4 different roles well.

BL>  Note that players and characters don't have to be evenly matched.  You could have one character with four players.  I can tell that I need to be a little more specific about this.

Yeah, I noticed that. This can also make things a bit easier, in that people that are overwhelmed just take on a few roles less.

Anyways, your game looks interesting, but complex, too me. Which is why my primary response was interested in 'ease of access' and clarity (and also 'cause you asked for a look at clarity, of course). This could just be the same thing again as me posting about Your Gods are Dead in a fairly newbie-oriented manner. Of course, if your game is intended for a certain minimal amount of experience (which I don't think it is, given the writing style and the hints), that's just as valid.

[Emily Care]

Hi Ben,

I second Tobias' comments about pc-npc. PC can also stand for primary or protagonist character. I like pc-sc (secondary/supporting characters) personally, though I understand your desire not to use unusual terms. However, I'd go for clarity over convention in this.

I have a suggestion. To avoid confusion about the role that each person is taking at a given time (h-frm/sk-nm-fm), it might be good to have an object representing each role that could be given to the appropriate player.  A visual cue like this would help reinforce the role and help people mark the change when a scene for a new character begins.  

The roles for the players (heart/frost maiden/new moon/full) are clear, and not necessarily overlapping per se, but there might be character-play overlap. Especially with delegation of characters, it seems that secondary characters would be played by multiple persons.

If a player has portrayed a character over the course of many scenes, they are assumed to have authority over that character if they appear in a scene, although it can be delegated away. This often happens when a character from one knight's story appears in another knight's story.

Hm. Sounds like this could get messy. What about assigning/identifying characters that fulfill the purposes of the frm/sk-nm-fm for each character and delegating responsibility for them based on the role each player occupies? Or would that be more complicated. If it was done that way, charts could be made (as you suggest) and the relationship between pc and sc could be indicated on the chart, along with the name of the (primary) player.  The character sheets could involve a tree-type diagram that had slots for other players or situations that represented the various aspects of the Knight's tale.

And I find this a bit confusing:

If another PC appears in the scene, that PC's Heart has authority over the PC, without exception.

So without exception, the players will be playing eachother's primary characters? That could be difficult. Or do you mean something else by this?

Anyway, it looks good overall. I'm curious to hear how it works out in play.

Best,
Emily Care

[Ben Lehman]

Protagonist (if all your characters are classical heroes) might be one, 'extra' or 'supporting character' might work for your NPCs.

I second Tobias' comments about pc-npc. PC can also stand for primary or protagonist character. I like pc-sc (secondary/supporting characters) personally, though I understand your desire not to use unusual terms. However, I'd go for clarity over convention in this.

BL>  Okay.  The terms are going to be revised.  I like "Protagonist," although "Protagonist Character" is a bit... uh... awkward sounding.  "Secondary Character" is sweet like sugar.

Can I take a moment now to say that I've always hated the term Non-Player Character?  It's the least useful term ever.  Ugly, technical sounding, and doesn't even abbreviate well.

I guess I just did.

I have a suggestion. To avoid confusion about the role that each person is taking at a given time (h-frm/sk-nm-fm), it might be good to have an object representing each role that could be given to the appropriate player.  A visual cue like this would help reinforce the role and help people mark the change when a scene for a new character begins.  

BL>  This is a great idea.  I'll put it into a hint.  I think I'll use some colored stones (red for the heart, white for the full moon, black for the new moon, clear for the Frost Maiden).

The roles for the players (heart/frost maiden/new moon/full) are clear, and not necessarily overlapping per se, but there might be character-play overlap. Especially with delegation of characters, it seems that secondary characters would be played by multiple persons.

BL>  Ues.  From the text below, you can see that I had some difficulty deciding whether:
1) Roles were roles, and the role plays the character for the scene.
or
2) Characters are possession of people who invested them with personality and meaning.

I guess that the main issue here is: do people think that (1), when combined with a note about authority designation, would cause issues in play?  ("no, no, the prime minister doesn't think that!" or something)

The text, at this point, is muddled about it.

Hm. Sounds like this could get messy. What about assigning/identifying characters that fulfill the purposes of the frm/sk-nm-fm for each character and delegating responsibility for them based on the role each player occupies? Or would that be more complicated. If it was done that way, charts could be made (as you suggest) and the relationship between pc and sc could be indicated on the chart, along with the name of the (primary) player.  The character sheets could involve a tree-type diagram that had slots for other players or situations that represented the various aspects of the Knight's tale.

BL>  Oooh... I kind of like that.

Let me put that in my "stew in brain" department.

And I find this a bit confusing:

If another PC appears in the scene, that PC's Heart has authority over the PC, without exception.

So without exception, the players will be playing eachother's primary characters? That could be difficult. Or do you mean something else by this?

BL>  The intention is that, without exception the Knight's Heart portrays the Knight.  No one else can do it.

Anyway, it looks good overall. I'm curious to hear how it works out in play.

BL>  So am I.

Thanks very much for your comments.

yrs--
--Ben

[Emily Care]

Can I take a moment now to say that I've always hated the term Non-Player Character?  It's the least useful term ever.  Ugly, technical sounding, and doesn't even abbreviate well.

Hear, hear.  Primary/secondary is definitely how I think of it.  It sits better with a non-standard gm-task distribution and playing multiple characters. pc/npc reflects a different type of system set. However, I can well imagine having multiple primaries. Oxymoronic, yes?

BL>  Ues.  From the text below, you can see that I had some difficulty deciding whether:
1) Roles were roles, and the [person in a given] role plays the character for the scene.
or
2) Characters are possession of people who invested them with personality and meaning.

I guess that the main issue here is: do people think that (1), when combined with a note about authority designation, would cause issues in play?  ("no, no, the prime minister doesn't think that!" or something)

Maybe you could have a limited proprietaryship for secondary characters that get used a lot.  If a person feels ownership of a given character, they could be the designated player for that character. It should be acknowledged that these characters need to support the primary characters, so their actions should be inspired by the needs of the scene. What the character eventually does would be a matter of negotiation between the designated player and the person occupying the role that holds authority over the character. The designated player would play the character with coaching from the role-holder.

Not all characters would be at issue--many could be handed around easily, I am sure. But for those that do rise above, maybe you could allow players to nominate secondary characters they bond with for a special status.  Or on the little character aspects tree I suggested, put a player's name in parentheses next to the character name is someone feels invested in the character.  

BL>  The intention is that, without exception the Knight's Heart portrays the Knight.  No one else can do it.

Ah. Yes, that makes sense. The words as they stand didn't communicate that to me.

best of luck
Emily

[Mike Holmes]

No time now, but in general I agree with the notion of dropping the PC/NPC division.

But then I would, wouldn't I. :-)

More later.

Mike