Filing Edges: Demigods

[Trevis Martin]

Ironically I AM working on a game called Regency Park which IS about and based on the social world in Jane Austen's novels.

I dunno, it interested me.

Trevis

[Ben Lehman]

I have on my back burner a Sorcerer minisup about, well, modern artists.  So you *think* that you are larger than life and that the rules of society don't apply to you, but they do, because you're a schmoe.  Just a schmoe who can paint.

yrs--
--Ben

[M. J. Young]

I read part of this thread yesterday, and it percolated for a while and brought something back.

The first review of Multiverser ever published was by some gamer on UseNet. As I recall, he took exception to the I-game concept of the game. His stance was that he wasn't arrogant enough to believe himself capable of surviving in an alien world, let alone becoming a hero. He would rather create a hero who was better than himself, and imagine that he was that here.

I don't know how prevalent that notion is. I didn't have it then; I'd been on a lot of wilderness adventures with the Scouts and had been trained in many useful skills for that sort of context. Yet I think that there is this appeal, at least to many gamers, of being someone whom we perceive as better, or more powerful, or more important, than whom we perceive ourselves to be.

In Multiverser, I see players who put a lot of effort into their characters becoming better. They find people to teach them to fight, study advanced technologies, read ancient tomes about magic, and otherwise strive to build up characters who can be heroes. I also see players who in playing themselves move through worlds with very little concern for their own character abilities. They'll learn a bit here, pick up some gadget there, take an interest in a particular field for a while, but in the main they're happy with being who they are. You can say that all versers have a kewl power, because they're all immortal; but the characters don't know this at first, and sometimes take a long time to figure it out, and even then it doesn't always make much difference.

I think if we were playing Prides & Prejudices, we would have players who wanted to be the rich character, the charismatic character, the politically connected character--who wanted to have a character whose impact on the world exceeded his own, so he could imagine being that someone better.

This then may be the heart of the problem. If you play characters who have no more ability to impact the world than you, either you're headed for one of those bleak games where loss is inevitable (Call of Cthulu, early Gamma World) or at best you're going to be involved in rather boring routine events that don't go anywhere. (I actually do not mean "boring" in derogation; such "boring" events can be the very focus of a simulationist exploration of a cultural setting--they just don't have any of the dynamic of something happening that drives most play.) However, as soon as the character has the ability to impact the world, whether due to ability or situation or any other factor, he must choose how to impact the world, and at that point he becomes either a hero or a villain, using his power for good or for evil, to the degree that he is so empowered.

So how do you make characters who can't change anything but are still interesting to play?

--M. J. Young

[Jonathan Walton]

So how do you make characters who can't change anything but are still interesting to play?

See, I don't think being powerless to change the larger situation of the world is boring.  Everyone has the power to change situations in their own lives and in the lives of those around them.  You can help your buddy get over a painful breakup.  You can find a new job that's better than your old one.  You can teach your son to fish.  All of these are "interesting" activities that don't have world-altering consequences.

[TonyLB]

Jonathan, I think that what you're saying is "You don't need to change the larger situation of the world, because the story is focussed on you, so the things you can change are automatically the meat of the story".  Am I close?

This would get into the interesting question of what the Stakes of the story are (in, I believe, Trollbabe terms), and how you get everyone on the same page about what the stakes are.  It is (as M.J. Young just pointed out in the Inertia thread) a question that doesn't touch on individual play, but matters a great deal in how folks play together as a group.

About which I could spout more, but will defer :-)