The relationship between character, sheet, and play

[Vaxalon]

Spawned from another topic, link to be added momentarily...

I mean... one of the things that defines a person, is the sum of his memories and experiences, things that show up on the character sheet as skills and abilites.  To change those around from one game session to the next... it doesn't seem to me that it would be the same character.

Those exceptions I mentioned?  They're important here.  

Let's say I'm making a character for DnD.  He's an ex-marine... a fighter trained to fight aboard ship.  I give him a few cross-class ranks in perform (sea chanties)... not because I want for an adventure to, at some point, revolve around that ability, but because it's just something he might know, and it helps define the character.

...the idea raises a whole slew of interesting questions about the relationship between the character, the character sheet, and the experience of play, and that your reply touches on a bunch of them (is the character sheet a descriptive document about the imaginary character or a catalogue of the character's system components? Both? Neither?). I wonder if John Kim's "role of the character sheet" thread would be a good place to explore them, or if we could maybe start a new one, because I'd love to talk about them.

Here's the new topic.

In my opinion, a character sheet starts off as a catalogue of system components, but as I go along, it becomes more and more of a descriptive document, because I jot down little notes about who the character is, whether the system touches on that aspect or not.  I consider those ad-hoc notes to be just as much a part of the character sheet as his Strength score.  That's one of the reasons I dislike cramped character sheets that don't have any room for making notes about the character.

[James Holloway]

In my opinion, a character sheet starts off as a catalogue of system components, but as I go along, it becomes more and more of a descriptive document, because I jot down little notes about who the character is, whether the system touches on that aspect or not.  I consider those ad-hoc notes to be just as much a part of the character sheet as his Strength score.  That's one of the reasons I dislike cramped character sheets that don't have any room for making notes about the character.

Thanks, Vaxalon.

There are a couple of different questions here, and I'm sure they've been addressed on the Forge already. I'd appreciate any links to older threads on the topic -- I'm sure I've seen them.

1) Is the character as imagined by the players of the game separate from the character as expressed through the system? Is it possible to say "well,  I guess it does say "hot-tempered" on the sheet there, but that's not what Big Steve's really like; I'd better change it?" Or do you look at the sheet and say "oh, heck, I forgot Big Steve's supposed to be hot-tempered. I'd better be angrier." Obviously, different groups approach this in different ways, and even differently at different times -- it's often thought acceptable to jigger around with your character sheet for a short while after the start of play, but regarded as "cheating" to do so later.

2) Can the sheet-as-descriptive document and the sheet-as-guide-to-game-contribution interfere with each other? Let's take the example of Vax's singing sailor guy. Vax has just spent some of his few skill points on knowing how to sing, purely for color. Why not just say he can sing and have done with it? It's never going to come up, I should hope, and in order to be able to sing at all well he's going to have to waste points -- so why not just say "he sings a rousing shanty" and let him spend the points on Climb or something? This comes back to "what is effectiveness in your game," I guess, but to me it's an example of currency crossing from one area of the character, effectiveness, to another, color, and that makes me a little nervous.

[contracycle]

I've put some comments in the prior thread as they seemed to follow on more easily there.

But yes, I agree with your identification of the crossing of currency into Colour as a problem, in the conventional sense, and touched on this in that post to the eralier thread.

[James Holloway]

I've put some comments in the prior thread as they seemed to follow on more easily there.

But yes, I agree with your identification of the crossing of currency into Colour as a problem, in the conventional sense, and touched on this in that post to the eralier thread.

And of course you mentioned HW/HQ, which allows the player to use that "color" skill actively -- and allows the player a little more control over when and how to use it, which is something abotu the system I'm particularly fond of.

In fact, this is kind of dovetailing right now with something GBSteve and I are talking about on my lj.[/url]

[Vaxalon]

Why not just say he can sing and have done with it? It's never going to come up, I should hope, and in order to be able to sing at all well he's going to have to waste points....

That assumes that to do so is a "waste"... I'm the one spending them, they're my points, and if I think that putting two skill points into the ability is a fair price, then it's not a waste.

DnD is a very explicit game, in that, what your character can do, and how well he can do it, is pretty much listed on the character sheet.  Lots of games are like this, especially on the crunchy end.

Ruleset bears on the question of whether the character sheet is definitive or not.

Social contract also bears.  Is it legal, for example, to go in and add something to a sheet and say he's always known it?  I've done that several times in Mike Holmes' game, and it's cool... but if I did that in Dungeons and Dragons, it's time for the scalded cat chorus.

[James Holloway]

Why not just say he can sing and have done with it? It's never going to come up, I should hope, and in order to be able to sing at all well he's going to have to waste points....

That assumes that to do so is a "waste"... I'm the one spending them, they're my points, and if I think that putting two skill points into the ability is a fair price, then it's not a waste.

I'm not sure that gaining the ability not to be able to sing worth a damn is really worth two of your handful of skill points -- mind you, it's not a big deal, and fighters are not very much about the skills anyway, but you have just made your character ever-so-slightly less effective than someone else who put those points in Ride or something. And your harsh, unappealing croak is only a wee bit better than his.

edit: and of course, this is what I was trying to get at -- a number of different ways to interpret character sheets. If it were me, I'd just say the heck with it and have you sing for free -- you're never going to earn a living at it, so why bother? Just say you can sing.

But then it wouldn't be on the character sheet, so it wouldn't be real, right? And that's what I mean about the difference between components and color.

[Vaxalon]

Whether or not that's the way it's handled is highly dependent on social contract, and through social contract on ruleset.

[Jason Newquist]

In my opinion, a character sheet starts off as a catalogue of system components, but as I go along, it becomes more and more of a descriptive document, because I jot down little notes about who the character is, whether the system touches on that aspect or not.  I consider those ad-hoc notes to be just as much a part of the character sheet as his Strength score.  That's one of the reasons I dislike cramped character sheets that don't have any room for making notes about the character.

Hi Vaxalon,

Would you agree that to the extent that these ad hoc notes are not introduced into play and do not experience an opportunity for scrutiny and acceptance, they're a form of game-inspired marginalia, but not part of the game itself?

In other words, just because you write something about your character on your sheet doesn't make it so.  And maybe that's ok.  Maybe the role of such character sheets is to provide a "creator worksheet" (as opposed to a "record sheet").  What actually becomes established in the SIS might be quite different.  Right?

-Jason

[James Holloway]

Would you agree that to the extent that these ad hoc notes are not introduced into play and do not experience an opportunity for scrutiny and acceptance, they're a form of game-inspired marginalia, but not part of the game itself?

You're a fine one to talk! I've been in games where your detailed note-taking and organizing became the key reference for the SIS. But I see a "to the extent that" disclaimer there.

So, yeah, these kinds of things *needn't necessarily* contribute to the SIS, but that's true of stuff on the front of the character sheet as well, right? Like, if it says on the sheet that my character can swim, but we never go near the water, can I swim? Did I go to Schrodinger Swimming School?

Is the content of the character sheet necessarily part of the SIS if it never appears in play?

[Jason Newquist]

Is the content of the character sheet necessarily part of the SIS if it never appears in play?

Hey James,

Yeah, that!

And I would say the answer is 'no'.  If we take "appears in play" to mean "Explored", then the answer is  'no, by definition'.  Right?

-Jason

[Vaxalon]

Yes, but they all have the POTENTIAL to be explored in the game.

Also, I would argue that something doesn't have to be part of the SIS to be important to the game play for everyone involved.

[Jason Newquist]

Vaxalon,

For clarity, I divided your quote because the topics are slightly different.  Hope you don't mind.

Yes, but they all have the POTENTIAL to be explored in the game.

Sure!  But so does anything anyone might say at the table.  There's an impossibly long list of things which might be potentially explored.  So the question is: of what value is this set of things which happens to be written down by someone, if it's never really explored?

It seems like the value of such things is preparatory in nature.  If it's not ever explored, it still might help create in the mind of the creator the sense of a complete whole thing, which might well be of value in the game.  But that's a very indirect kind of value, isn't it?  

Also, I would argue that something doesn't have to be part of the SIS to be important to the game play for everyone involved.

Hmm. Well, if something's Explorable and it's not in the SIS, how can it be important to the game?  Can you provide an example?

-Jason

[Vaxalon]

Sure!

I've got a note on my character sheet.  "Jonas is posessed by a demon.  He'll try to ingratiate himself with the party, but the demon will gradually drive him to more and more corrupt acts."  I have to write stuff like that down, because if I don't, the secret gets forgotten, and the facade becomes the character.

Jonas's secret is vitally important to how he's played, and how he interacts with the rest of the characters.  Even if they never discover his secret, Jonas's play will be dominated by it, and all of his relationships with the other characters will be colored by it.

[Jason Newquist]

Cool example!

But until the secret is shared (and accepted), it can't be a part of the shared imaginary space.  It's just a cool performance instruction you've written to yourself.  It has implications galore, and those become part of the SIS or not, according to your performance.

-Jason

[Vaxalon]

You are absolutely correct... and irrelevant to my point.

The note on the character sheet may never be shared OVERTLY... but since its implications are important; therefore, something can be important to play without being a part of the SIS.

SIS isn't everything.