"Gandalf Did It"

[Vaxalon]

I dont see any reason why a mage cant be as good with a sword as a warrior. Gandalf did it, and countless other heroes in fantasy settings have.

I don't think Gandalf is a particularly good model for PC's.  His role in the books (indeed, in the movies, too) is primarily to push the main characters (Frodo and Aragorn) and their associated hangers-on into their places.  If LOTR were a roleplaying campaign, Gandalf would be an NPC.  When his protection is becoming overbearing to the story, he vanishes; when things need a kick in the pants again, he shows up.

He's a walking, talking, spellcasting, swordswinging McGuffin.

[Alan]

I think "Gandalf would have to be an NPC" assumes some kind of concern with fair or balanced distribution of the PCs ability to perform tasks.  This could be completely overcome with a conflict resolution system in stead of task resolution.  For example, a modification of Trollbabe could easily portray a sword-swinging wizard.  In fact, TB with some modifications, could probably create adventures like those Gandalf participated in while he was separated from the Fellowship, up to and including his transcendance to white.

[Callan S.]

You need justification for system design choices now? Justification for having sword weilding wizards?

[Vaxalon]

I think "Gandalf would have to be an NPC" assumes some kind of concern with fair or balanced distribution of the PCs ability to perform tasks.

No it doesn't.  My post doesn't say anything about distribution of ability.  It rests entirely on the character's purpose.  Gandalf's purpose is to move things along when they're stagnant and disappear when they're not... which is pretty much the opposite of a PC's purpose.

[Joshua Patterson]

Let's not forget that Gandalf is a member of the Istari (basically an angel), and is wielding one of the three elvish rings of power given to him by Cirdan.  Not your typical character...

/Tolkien nerd

[LandonSuffered]

Gandalf is a bit difficult to guage, as he is not truly human, but an immortal (an Istari as one person already pointed out). His role (i.e. his character's motive/drive) is to help guide the races of Middle-Earth specifically:

"...to move Elves and Men and all living things of good will to valiant deeds."
-   Silmarillion  [just happened to be next to my computer this evening!]

I think it's difficult to play any kind of character with inhuman motivations (be it an Istari, a Melnibonean, or a minotaur of Krynn), and is in fact only possible by "humanizing" the race (giving it human characteristics, albeit often warped to extremes, like the honor of a klingon or the logic of a vulcan).  But it is certainly possible, and doesn't necessitate being an NPC.

In the Hobbit, Gandalf often disappears and reappears...you could think of him as a "high level" (or different power scale) PC being used as an NPC.  But in the LOTR, Gandalf is very much "one of the guys," in the respect that "the guys" (besides the hobbits) are all great lords among their people.  The character Gandalf simply has a different skill set then the other characters involved.

It is not Gandalf that drives the story; pretty much it is the Ring and its effect on people that does this.  Gandalf shows up in the Shire with news on the Ring...after a little side-adventure with Aragorn to find ol' Gollum. Gandaf goes to use one of his "contacts," Saruman only to find (Bang) Saruman has been corrupted by the enemy and is offering him the chance to join the winning side.  Sure Gandalf takes out the balrog, but its not like Frodo could have taken on the rock troll (or even an Uruk-hai) by himself...you can say the "adventure" was scaled to fit the characters in different scenes.

Gandalf "fails" often, not necessarily pushing the plot forward, but actually having to adjust like any other player character (Denethor still burns himself, Pippen still gets snared by the Palantir, Frodo's fate is still in his own hands). 

Anyway, whoever the original poster was, I've got to agree with him 100%...Gandalf is an excellent example of why wizards should be able to use swords.  Since watching LOTR, my non-gamer wife thinks it extremely silly when ANY fantasy game restricts a wizard's ability to fight or use weapons...which is why I started designing a new game, myself!

[Silmenume]

Hey Vaxalon,

I dont see any reason why a mage cant be as good with a sword as a warrior. Gandalf did it, and countless other heroes in fantasy settings have.

I don't think Gandalf is a particularly good model for PC's.  His role in the books (indeed, in the movies, too) is primarily to push the main characters (Frodo and Aragorn) and their associated hangers-on into their places.  If LOTR were a roleplaying campaign, Gandalf would be an NPC.  When his protection is becoming overbearing to the story, he vanishes; when things need a kick in the pants again, he shows up.

He's a walking, talking, spellcasting, swordswinging McGuffin.

My post doesn't say anything about distribution of ability.  It rests entirely on the character's purpose.  Gandalf's purpose is to move things along when they're stagnant and disappear when they're not... which is pretty much the opposite of a PC's purpose.

I'm confused.  Maybe I don't have the full context of the spawning thread, but my read is that you are replying to, and what "sayter" seems to be proposing, are operating on two different levels.  From my limited reading, it seems to me that "sayter" is basically posing from a mechanics/game design paradigm (Why can't a mage use a sword in a RPG - like Gandalf did; FREX?) while it appears you are rebutting from a literature/story based paradigm (Because Gandalf is a plot device).

[Vaxalon]

Gandalf shows up in the Shire with news on the Ring...after a little side-adventure with Aragorn to find ol' Gollum. Gandaf goes to use one of his "contacts," Saruman only to find (Bang) Saruman has been corrupted by the enemy and is offering him the chance to join the winning side.  Sure Gandalf takes out the balrog, but its not like Frodo could have taken on the rock troll (or even an Uruk-hai) by himself...you can say the "adventure" was scaled to fit the characters in different scenes.

Gandalf "fails" often, not necessarily pushing the plot forward, but actually having to adjust like any other player character (Denethor still burns himself, Pippen still gets snared by the Palantir, Frodo's fate is still in his own hands).

Gandalf's "side adventure" can't be used as an example of Gandalf-as-protagonist because it's not something we see "played out" but something he describes as having already happened.  It's exposition, not exploration.  In the book, the same is true of the scene where Saruman reveals his betrayal to Gandalf.

Gandalf's "failures" as you term them are continuing examples of Gandalf not being there when he would get in the way of the main characters.

[Alan]

Vaxalon,

You've pointed out Gandalf was a fictional character with a specific story function, not a roleplaying character.  How does that have any bearing on why players should or should not be able to play a character _like_ him in a roleplaying game?  If for example, the player is happy to surrender the character's special fictional roles as Istar and archetypal guardian, but wants a PC that wields both magic and sword, what then?

[Vaxalon]

That's not a complete summary of my point.  My point is that if LOTR had been a roleplaying campaign rather than a book or movie Gandalf would have been a GM-controlled character rather than a player-character; his function in the "game" was to fade out when the climactic moments happened.

As a result, his abilities were determined by a different set of priorities than a PC's would be.

You and I may have different ideas of what those priorities would be, but do you not agree that the abilities of protagonists and supporting characters (PC's and NPC's) must needs be generated according to different sets of priorities?

[Clinton R. Nixon]

If for example, the player is happy to surrender the character's special fictional roles as Istar and archetypal guardian, but wants a PC that wields both magic and sword, what then?

Alan,

You already know the answer to this question: play Trollbabe.

Seriously, this discussion is making me lose brain cells. As is, it's insanely scattered and is veering into "wizards should be able to use swords!" territory, which I could have sworn we got out of our systems over Doritos in a basement when we were 15.

There are a few interesting things in this thread. Let's focus on them:

Since watching LOTR, my non-gamer wife thinks it extremely silly when ANY fantasy game restricts a wizard's ability to fight or use weapons...which is why I started designing a new game, myself!

Bully for you, man! Keep that up, and post about it in Indie Game Design.

The other interesting part is not over whether Gandalf was a plot device (even typing that sentence made me embarassed), but over how we deal with having characters of such varying power in a role-playing game. Is it possible to put Frodo and Gandalf in a game together and give them the same story power? Of course, I think we've answered this question a hundred times over the last four years, but at least it's kind of on topic for the Forge.

[Larry L.]

Thank you for trying to steer this thread into vaguely germane territory, Clinton. Good lord...

[Vaxalon]

Actually, Clinton, (with all due respect), I think you're wrong, I don't think that the story power question is terribly interesting anymore; as you say, that question has been covered.

More interesting to me, is the question, "What priorities drive the creation of PC's and NPC's?"... even though I only just now came to the realization that that question is really what I had had in mind.  This question may also have been covered many times on the Forge, but if so, I'm not aware of it.

Let me begin with the following assumption: A PC is a character about whom play is focused; an NPC is a character that serves this focus.  Personally, I think this point is fairly tautologous, but seems to deserve statement.  In some games, "PC" status is tattooed on the forehead and never changes; in others the distinction can be fluid, but is sustaining enough to be relevant.  If there's significant disagreement it should probably show up in a different thread.

This distinction means that each character (PC and NPC) has a purpose in the game, a thrust, a kind of movement.  What form this purpose takes depends on things like genre convention and creative agenda, but for NPC's, the purpose only exists in relation to the purposes of the PC's, whether to assist or oppose.  Because of that thrust, their abilities should, ideally, exist in relationship to that purpose.  Any work spent on giving abilities to NPC's that don't relate to their purpose is unneeded at best and counterproductive at worst.

[Ron Edwards]

Courtesy moderation time.

Fred, you are agreeing with Clinton, not disagreeing with him. Your original thread topic was horseshit. Clinton found the still-viable nutrients in the pile and has nurtured them. You have now, with your latest post in response to his, revised your topic into something meaningful.

Try to say "thanks" when someone does you a favor like that.

Don't reply to me in any fashion. Just carry on with this (now) good thread.

Best,
Ron

[ADGBoss]

... is the question, "What priorities drive the creation of PC's and NPC's?"... even though I only just now came to the realization that that question is really what I had had in mind.  This question may also have been covered many times on the Forge, but if so, I'm not aware of it.

Let me begin with the following assumption: A PC is a character about whom play is focused; an NPC is a character that serves this focus.  Personally, I think this point is fairly tautologous, but seems to deserve statement.  In some games, "PC" status is tattooed on the forehead and never changes; in others the distinction can be fluid, but is sustaining enough to be relevant.  If there's significant disagreement it should probably show up in a different thread.

This distinction means that each character (PC and NPC) has a purpose in the game, a thrust, a kind of movement.  What form this purpose takes depends on things like genre convention and creative agenda, but for NPC's, the purpose only exists in relation to the purposes of the PC's, whether to assist or oppose.  Because of that thrust, their abilities should, ideally, exist in relationship to that purpose.  Any work spent on giving abilities to NPC's that don't relate to their purpose is unneeded at best and counterproductive at worst.

I would think that part of the question or answer is that the use of PC & NPC is technically outdated. Even in a traditional six Players and 1 GM kind of RPG, the GM is in reality still a Player, just a Player with more responsibility. This repsonsibility will vary from group to group and system to system.

So the question would be "What priorities drive the creation of Characters?" I do not think we can really make a distinction based on the Focus vs. Serving Focus distinction. At times any character can assume those roles whether controlled by a regular Player or the GM. As a matter of course, Player controlled Characters do not have superfilous skills and abilities unless the Player in question is adding them for Color. "My Spec Forces guys is a cook too!" In some systems, constructing a GM controlled Character like a Player Controlled one makes them equal in power and ability and thus more challenging on many levels. It also makes them more interesting. If you were to come upon the (sword wearing) High Wizard making chocolate in his lab, doesn't that tell you something important about that Character?

In my own experience, I find it useful to have a fleshed out GM Controlled Character even if parts of the character are never seen by anyone. Certianly many Players do not reveal every nuance and skill of their Character even if they are not hiding it. "Hey Bob I di dnot Azeroth could cook? Well Sally did Pikachew ever ask him?" Yet those skills are still part of the Character.

Ok so what priorities DO drive the creation of Characters? I really think that depends on... well everything else. Setting, Social Contract, length of Play (campaign), and all the other questions that go into the creation of Play. Indeed priorities may be fluid as the game or the spotlight changes. I guess maybe I am a bit fuzzy because I think priorities are such specific things to each game and indeed maybe even to each specific session. Then comes the question of making effective characters? Do priorites make a character effective or do ineffective characters just pursue their priorities slowly?

I suppose you could say that priority of any character, whoever controls it, is to fit into the game in a way that makes sense and is consistent with the Color (Setting) or not so inconsistent as to destroy the suspension of disbelief.

I would say that is true even of Mooks.  I honestly think that days of throw away characters could be over, but maybe not.

Sean