News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Inviolate characters: The Security Blanket

Started by TonyLB, April 23, 2006, 05:13:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

drnuncheon

Quote from: Vaxalon on April 26, 2006, 02:23:14 PM
When the stakes are "Doctor Trinity is revealed to be a faker and an idiot" (not "...is made into an idiot") that's a defeat for me.  It's kind of like a retcon.

Except (as has been pointed out in other threads) you can't make anything stick in Capes. So you're perfectly free to take the Story Tokens you got for being beaten on that goal and use them to win:

Goal: Dr. Trinity clears his name and reputation
or maybe
Event: An imposter is revealed!
or even
Goal: ...but it was all part of my Master Plan!

Sydney Freedberg

Jeff, absolutely! And it's very in keeping with comic books.

Fred, I remember reading about the game where you played Doctor Trinity, and that was clearly not satisfying for you, so that's a good example of "people changing my character in ways I didn't agree to can suck."

As I recall, the thing that really annoyed Fred was someone else narrating their character casually snapping Trinity's spine and tossing him into the deepest part of the Pacific. Clearly, that marred Fred's concept of Trinity as a powerful, aloof manipulator.

But -- looking at Sindyr now -- wouldn't the spine-snapping count as "external" adversity and thus be permissible under your Authorship Rule? I can see the clear, bright line in theory between "this is external, it only affects my character from the outside, I don't need to be able to veto it" and "this is internal, it is about how my character feels and thinks and who he is, and I need to have a veto." But in practice, any "external" thing your character truly cares about is going to reflect on who he or she is internally. E.g. if your concept is of a smooth supervillain, and somebody snaps himlike a twig and bodyslams him into the Pacific, well, your concept just took as big a hit as if somebody makes him cry; if your concept is of a supernaturally lucky and charming superhero (Lucky Charm, right?), then losing "Goal: Lucky Charm impresses everybody" is as bad as losing "Goal: Make Lucky Charm snivel and whine."

You don't really even need to have a Capes-style Goal system to see this effect in play. If you have a D&D character, and your concept is "my guy is a cool, brooding, angsty hero," but all the other players at the table think the character, as you portray him, is a whiny dork, then -- guess what -- your character is a whiny dork. If your concept is "my character is charming, smooth, and witty," and none of the other players at the table ever laughs at the jokes you tell through his mouth, then -- guess what -- your character is not witty.

"The character" is not some inviolate concept in your head. "The character" only becomes real when you share it with other people -- and I'm not just talking RPG characters here: It's true of your characters even if you're writing a novel, because the whole point of a novel is to be read by somebody else. Other people's reactions to that character help define who he or she really is, which will never be exactly what you imagined.

And that's a good thing! If your character concept wasn't that great, everyone's lack of enthusiasm tells you so, and you can try to make it better, or try another one. If your character concept was cool but could be even cooler -- and what is perfect when first created? -- then the things everyone else pushes you to do with the character tells you what you could do to realize the full potential of your idea. And when you embrace other people's input, even (especially) the criticisms that are hard for you to take, you can create something far greater than what you could have done on your own.

This is is what I mean by

QuoteThere is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.

I'm not talking about Capes here. I am talking about every roleplaying game ever. I am talking about every artistic activity from acting to writing.

Why are we trying to do this roleplaying thing in the first place? Because there is something tremendously rewarding about saying, "hey, here's my cool idea" -- for a character, for a scene, for a crazy combat move, whatever -- and having a whole bunch of people sitting around the table with you say, "yeah! cool!" Otherwise you might as well be alone in your room, daydreaming. The other people's reaction is the point. Why not play a game that acknowledges that?

Bret Gillan

Quote from: drnuncheon on April 26, 2006, 03:03:53 PMExcept (as has been pointed out in other threads) you can't make anything stick in Capes. So you're perfectly free to take the Story Tokens you got for being beaten on that goal and use them to win:

Goal: Dr. Trinity clears his name and reputation
or maybe
Event: An imposter is revealed!
or even
Goal: ...but it was all part of my Master Plan!
F'real. In the example Sydney cites above, I'm imagining Dr. Trinity pulling himself out of the ocean, dragging his legs behind him, hatred and a thirst for vengeance carved into his face. Now that's hardcore!

Eric Sedlacek

Great post, Sydney.  It is so true, but it flies in the face of our egos as role players.  We all like to think we are mavericks, free spirits, etc., but the dirty little secret we all harbor is that we, like all the other people on the planet, care what other people think of us and what other people think of our efforts.  We prove this in the fact that we choose to express our creativity in groups instead of in solitude.  Writers write not only to write but to be read.  Role players role play not only to talk but to be heard.

One of the things I love about Capes is that it is so hard to feign interest while playing.  I'm not sure why this is true, but it is.  When people are impressed, it shows.  When they aren't, it shows too.  And the fact that you inevitably fail to be impressive with frequency makes it all the sweeter when you hit one out of the park.  The stark reality of your failures make your successes real as well.

Tuxboy

QuoteSindyr, I gotta say something, and Tony can tell me if I'm being out of line here, but I've been away from this forum for awhile and I come back and I'm greeted by a strange reply from you that seems to imply that my mode of play is "easier" than yours and that it doesn't have the "extra required thought" that yours does. Then I scroll down and you seem to be demanding that people not judge your opinions. Is passive-aggressively insinuating that my play is inferior to yours the way that you get people to respect your opinions? Because it's not working for me, and that's after being exposed to you for less than an hour.

Bret, I wouldn't let it bother you...Sindyr has a tedency to use judgemental language like "neanderthal", "anarchy", and "barbaric" to describe styles of play with which he doesn't agree.

Its base irony given his stance on judgementalism, but doesn't stop it being amusing...at least to me ;)
Doug

"Besides the day I can't maim thirty radioactive teenagers is the day I hang up my coat for good!" ...Midnighter

dunlaing

I am reminded of a famous issue of Fantastic Four.

At the time, there had recently been an issue of X-Men in which Doctor Doom behaved in a way that the writer of Fantastic Four found to be out of character. Doctor Doom is a Fantastic Four villain, not an X-Men villain, so there is some sort of an ownership issue there.

So the writer of Fantastic Four wrote in a scene in which Doctor Doom is reviewing his Doombots. One of the Doombots is revealed to be the "Doctor Doom" from the X-Men issue and is summarily destroyed by Doctor Doom for not acting properly in that issue.

Eric Sedlacek

Quote from: dunlaing on April 27, 2006, 05:57:21 PM
I am reminded of a famous issue of Fantastic Four.

At the time, there had recently been an issue of X-Men in which Doctor Doom behaved in a way that the writer of Fantastic Four found to be out of character. Doctor Doom is a Fantastic Four villain, not an X-Men villain, so there is some sort of an ownership issue there.

So the writer of Fantastic Four wrote in a scene in which Doctor Doom is reviewing his Doombots. One of the Doombots is revealed to be the "Doctor Doom" from the X-Men issue and is summarily destroyed by Doctor Doom for not acting properly in that issue.

That's fantastic.  The author was playing Capes and didn't even know it.

Vaxalon

Yes, but is this due to the comic book being like Capes, or Capes being like the comic book?
"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker

TonyLB

Please don't necromance for trivia, Fred.  If you'd like to split off a thread to discuss this topic, feel free, otherwise let the dead rest in peace.
Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum

Vaxalon

Sorry.  I didn't check the date, I just trusted the "New" icon on the front page.   I'll look more closely in the future; evidently there may be a bug there.
"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker