Flat Characters

[Mike Holmes]

In both instances the characters are completely flat and transparent, they are simply a tool for the players to act in the reality of the game. They have no personnal motivations other than "win" the scenario by solving the mystery or accomplishing the mission. Nowadays I realize why this has been so: our scenarii are so tightly planned before the game cession that only flat characters will work well with them. We have uncounsciously flattened the characters to avoid disturbing the scenario.

This is all fine and good, and actually when I ask some people why they like to play the game, "solving the puzzle" is an answear that comes up. But my problem is that I can't stand anymore to play superficial characters. I would really like to "feel" a character I interpret (this is called ROLE playing, after all, not Cluedo), and not simply have a collection of numbers that enable me to play the game.

What you're looking for, I believe, is for the characters to be what's refered to in literature theory as "Dynamic" correct? This is precisely where narrativism theory comes from, the desire to enable players to play dynamic characters. Note that, interestingly, that it's a mistake to assume that dynamic means that the character must change. Take Conan, for instance, he rarely changes (becoming a king is somewhat of an exception, but you'll note he quits). But the difference between Conan, and a flat character is that the reader feels that Conan is given opportnities where he could change. And his decision not to change is what's interesting about him.

You're absolutely right, IMO, when you say that this is a matter of scenario design. Basically the techniques required to maneuver PCs through such a scenario as you describe require the sort of flattening you describe. Even when "subplots" are injected, they rarely offer the player the ability to show how the character truely reacts to something.

This is why I harp on the bang thing, and how it's good for HQ play. Bangs can be defined by saying that they force characters to become dynamic - the player deciding upon the form of the dynamism. With HQ, these things can be mechanically reinforced by introducing the elements of the choice taken into contests that result from the decisions that create dynamism. Does the character decide to chase after the girl? Then his relationship adds in. But he can't add his bonus for chasing the enemy going the other way. So the decision is felt through the mechanics.

Mike

[Barna]

This has happened to me recently regarding NPCs. While I love GMing, I tend to get increasingly bored when interpreting NPCs. What´s worse, not only does the 7th Sea "canon" have a lot of interesting NPCs to boot, each and every entry includes a "How to roleplay XXX" which gives some useful pointers on representing said character. Still, they feel boring to me.

I believe it has to do with what Mike says. I think my NPCs have become another gear in the plot in past sessions, and that´s what "flattens" them. My current (actually, let´s hope prior...) style of play made it very difficult for me to drive this characters "motivation-wise" but instead promoted a "plot-wise" management of NPCs. I think my players have sensed this too, as they tend to see NPCs for what their contribution to the plot rather than for their motivations & passions.

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, if you want to bring an NPC to life in play, have them change thier minds about something important, and (this is key) in a way that completely goes along with some other aspect of their personality.

NPC: "You know, I really do hate the idea of killing peasants...but if it'll hurt the duke...well, I hate the duke, so I'm in!"

Remember that players create potential bangs all the time for NPCs. If you really want to convince a player that you're letting an NPC go any which way is interesting, have them make the decision for the NPC.

This all said, beware always of making the NPCs protagonists in their own rights. If/when they do prove dynamic, immediately have them help a PC prove he's dynamic.

NPC: "Hmm, actually I'm not sure whether it's worth hurting the Duke. How about you let me have that other sword of yours if I help?"

Mike

[Alexandre Santos]

What you're looking for, I believe, is for the characters to be what's refered to in literature theory as "Dynamic" correct?

Yes, I think you have cornered it. I would like to give a chance for the PCs to show who they are, and for what they are to be important to the story, instead of being irrelevent, as is the case today.

it's a mistake to assume that dynamic means that the character must change

You have a good point. I had somehow uncounsciously assumed that bangs where crossroads in the PC's path that shaped them. But it's true that they can be viewed as moments where the PCs show who they are, without necessarily having an impact in their future actions.

As a matter of fact we are (hopefully) going to create characters for a new Falkenstein campaign next week end. I am not the GM, but have been talking with him about these topics, and we will try to get the players to create "dynamic" characters, from which the action flows, instead of it comming from the GM. We will try to create PCs with enough inner potential and most of all motivations to do things by themselves, so that the GM's role will be more a supporting act than the source of all initiative.

[Mike Holmes]

I ran HQ Falkenstein last year, and it didn't go all that well in terms of enabling characters to be dynamic. The problem is that Falkenstein, because of it's nature, requires a "plot." No, not in terms of a direction for the narrative, but in terms of some NPCs having a plan to do something bad to the good guys. This assumes, of course, that you use the central conceit of the game that the characters are all agents for the Bavarian Crown. What happened in my case, was that players assumed that their only job was to stop the plot. That is, despite the fact that I was constantly trying to throw bangs at them, they were always looking for the "right" answer that would lead them to the solution of the mystery.

I think it can be done, and with the right players it would be easier. But just beware that the apparent format can lead to play that's reminiscent of CoC play.

Mike

[Alexandre Santos]

What happened in my case, was that players assumed that their only job was to stop the plot.

I see what you mean. In our case we plan to say from the start that there IS NO PLOT from the GM, so that should be a start.

What I have suggested so far is that all the PCs will be from an aristocratic family which, after an (yet undefined) tragedy, lost most of its position (an uniting Fallen House theme). This should help the PCs to have reasons to stick together and cooperate. We also suggested that we give a list of themes that we want our PCs to explore, and that only after those themes have been discussed and agreed, we would really create the characters, to take them into account (in my case I would be interested in a theme about what it means to be human nor non-human, what are the borders of both conditions, etc).

the characters are all agents for the Bavarian Crown

That's the typical mission style of games that I am used to play. The PCs are "soldiers on a mission". Defenitely not the best to encourage too much soul-expression ("You have a mission, now go soldier!").

the apparent format can lead to play that's reminiscent of CoC play

Indeed, Call of Cthulhu is one of our favorite RPGs. And for a good reason, since we are used to mission-based games (or investigation games, which have the same problem)

Now the success of this endeavour relies on convincing the players to stop playing mission-style scenarios, and switch to character-centered scenarios. We'll se if we manage...

[Mike Holmes]

I see what you mean. In our case we plan to say from the start that there IS NO PLOT from the GM, so that should be a start.

You think I didn't try that? I stated that not just once, but over and over.

You know, it could just have been uninspired prep on my part. The players told me that it was a fun game, too, so perhaps I'm judging it too harshly.

What I have suggested so far is that all the PCs will be from an aristocratic family which, after an (yet undefined) tragedy, lost most of its position (an uniting Fallen House theme). This should help the PCs to have reasons to stick together and cooperate. We also suggested that we give a list of themes that we want our PCs to explore, and that only after those themes have been discussed and agreed, we would really create the characters, to take them into account (in my case I would be interested in a theme about what it means to be human nor non-human, what are the borders of both conditions, etc).

That sounds better than my set up. But I'm wondering what the attraction of the Falkenstein background was, then? Why not historical Europe, for instance, or just a regular fantasy world? It seems to me that the attraction of Falkenstein are the pulp elements and genre-bashing. How are you going to bring that in (and not have it take over)?

That's the typical mission style of games that I am used to play. The PCs are "soldiers on a mission". Defenitely not the best to encourage too much soul-expression ("You have a mission, now go soldier!").

Exactly. I was hoping that I could make it work and was only so successful.

You have a centralizing concept that's more likely to work, I believe. But I still wonder if the "evil plot" part of things won't sink in. I mean there's a whole section in the book on how to develop the evil plot, and how it's crucial to the feel of play. Just going to ignore that? Or will the game become "Family Mission" style? :-)

Mike

[Arturo G.]

Hi, Alexander and Mike!

Now the success of this endeavour relies on convincing the players to stop playing mission-style scenarios, and switch to character-centered scenarios. We'll se if we manage...

But I still wonder if the "evil plot" part of things won't sink in. I mean there's a whole section in the book on how to develop the evil plot, and how it's crucial to the feel of play. Just going to ignore that?

I think the key is to derive the evil plot as a consequence of the situation.

First, create the situation in the usual way (perhaps draw a relationship-map). Just be sure that one or more of the NPCs have their own (perhaps weird) reasons to do something "evil" because the situation. Think in the "evil plot" as "what will happen if the player characters are not around".
Then, introduce the players in the situation, be sure that NPCs have reasons to think on the player characters as valuable helpers or obstacles to their plans and desires. Play the NPCs wildly and actively. Let them search/ask for help/attack the player characters. Let them lie and be caught. Let them spill out their secret plans and intentions when coerced or when they have an anticipated feeling of victory. The secret plot will be revealed naturally as the players navigate the situation.

The play should not be "plot-oriented" anymore. Probably the players will be still looking for the "right" answer for the situation. I would not worry. Just present the questions, and let the players decide which ones are the answers. Be sure to play hard on the consequences of their choices and they will surely feel happy no matter what happens.

Arturo

[Mike Holmes]

That's kinda where I tried to go, Arturo. Thing is, as soon as the players got a whiff of the plot, it was all focus on ferreting it out until it's done. Which meant, for one thing, that these plots didn't last as long as you would want to fit the genre. The more convoluted the plot you made in order to make it take longer to play out, the more the players felt informed that they were supposed to be doing nothing but ferreting out the plot. Viscious circle.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I had difficulty doing it. That shouldn't stop anyone from trying the method, I mess up all the time.

Note that this is somewhat similar to what I'm trying to do in my IRC game, where I play against the metaplot background, and try to not get overwhelmed by the metaplot. I've had a lot more success in that vein.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

One of the greatest resources for this style of play is Dogs in the Vineyard.  The instructions to GM's in this book basically consist of:

* Decide on "what's wrong" without deciding on "what's right"
* Focus "what's wrong" on characters with motivations
* Actively reveal what's wrong in play
* Make NPC's care about what the PC's do
* Drive play towards conflict

[Arturo G.]

Indeed, I was having in mind lessons learned from DitV when writting the previous post.

Mike, I see the problem. I have the same feelings many times.
I think it is not easy to make it fully work, but the key is to clearly associate the situation and the evil-plot, and the active exposition of the evil-plot by interactions with the NPCs, which in most cases derive in more conflict.

Thing is, as soon as the players got a whiff of the plot, it was all focus on ferreting it out until it's done. Which meant, for one thing, that these plots didn't last as long as you would want to fit the genre. The more convoluted the plot you made in order to make it take longer to play out, the more the players felt informed that they were supposed to be doing nothing but ferreting out the plot.

Once the main characters take a grip on the plot they should be always advancing in discovering it, with some surprises and twists here and there, of course. If plot is derived from situation, plot is discovered by solving the situation. Then, of course, everything is really over. Anything not directly related with the situation/plot is not really interesting, and the players naturally focus in what seems interesting to them. They are doing it right. A good situation should easily deliver a complicate combination of interactions, conflicts and hard decisions to fully expose the intentions, motivations and hopes of the NPCs. And that is the story they expect.

I must admit I cannot make it work fine everytime. I discover myself sometimes protecting the plot to avoid the players discover things to early. This is exactly what works wrong.

Arturo

[Alexandre Santos]

Hi Arturo and Vaxalon!

I'm wondering what the attraction of the Falkenstein background was, then? Why not historical Europe, for instance, or just a regular fantasy world?

The reasons we are interested in Falkenstein instead of historical Europe or pure fantasy is that we would like to play grander than life and flamboyant characters. Characters that experience Love and Passion, that have Honor and all kinds of capitalized adjectives. Also, the free for all mix of fantasy, magic, mad science and steampunk tech was a plus to federate the players. Using an purely historical setting would have made our play more serious and restricted by all kinds of historical constraints that we don't care to take into account.

On the other hand the advantage over pure fantasy is that the game setting is still connected to the historical 19th century, which gives us an excuse to dig documents, texts and pictures of the time. That is not only entertaining, but also provides also a lot of "substance" to the setting.

Finally, we appreciate to chat in character with an aristocratic and lofty pseudo-Victorian style ;-)

But I still wonder if the "evil plot" part of things won't sink in. I mean there's a whole section in the book on how to develop the evil plot, and how it's crucial to the feel of play. Just going to ignore that?

For me the essence of Falkenstein is to play characters who Do the Right Thing, be it for honor, the protection of the weak, etc. As long as this involves some grand speeches and an healthy dose of swashbuckling action, I'm happy.

In our case the evil plot(s) should come from the characters themselves:
In Falkenstein you have to choose a nemesis, a recurring enemy that will haunt you. In our last run of Falkenstein I created a character with enough enemies to keep her busy for a long time. The GM just needed to use the hooks provided by the characters background to start playing the game.

In fact it is not the first time we are playing Falkenstein. During our last campaign I created a very dense and complicated character, but all the work turned out to be useless because the GM scenarios could not cope with the character's background. I could not show at all who she was, and she remained as flat and transparent as my previous characters.

Because now we are going to start another campaign, I wanted to recycle that character (since it was basically unused). But I realized that there is so much material in the background that it could be a campaign in itself, and there was no way the GM would be able to integrate that background in its own campaign. That's why I suggested the GM that instead of him building a campaign in which our characters take part, the background material we would create for each character would in fact become THE campaign played by GM. The players would be secondary GMs, providing the setting, while the GM would arbitrate the action (we even thought of alternating the primary GM role). I thought that was the only way to really play a more dense character, since it would have room to express itself.

I roamed a bit the internet to see if other people played in this fashion and I ended up at the Forge via Polaris, which was an eye opener

will the game become "Family Mission" style? :-)

Well, I personnally wouldn't mind a Amber family style of story (i.e. plot centered around a family), but I will have to see what the other players want.

Anything not directly related with the situation/plot is not really interesting, and the players naturally focus in what seems interesting to them. They are doing it right.

I think that such as we plan to play this campaign, there should be no "evil plot" external to the characters. Or if so, resolution of the plot should lead to something relevant to characters. I think we have played too many "who killed Mr. X?" plots, and now I would like to have more plots in the style of "who killed MY grand mother? Why?".

I discover myself sometimes protecting the plot to avoid the players discover things to early. This is exactly what works wrong.

Indeed, but if it goes as planned, the plot would be originating from the player rather than the GM, so the GM should not have to many temptations to "protect" the plot.

It must also be noted that in Falkenstein the player defines the long term aims of the character, which gives ample room for the GM to plan obstacles (and thus plots) on its way.

One of the greatest resources for this style of play is Dogs in the Vineyard.

Yes, it seems good, specially the bit about making the NPCs care about the PCs actions. This is really what kicks things in motion. The players will anyway move their characters by themselves, but the GM must take care to handle the NPCs in ways that take into account (and thus "validate") the PCs moves.

[Vaxalon]

One of the ways that Dogs supports that style of play is to give the players AUTHORITY.  That's very important.

I'm definitely working that into the game that I'm putting together right now.

[Alexandre Santos]

One of the ways that Dogs supports that style of play is to give the players AUTHORITY.  That's very important.

What do you mean by authority? The fact that the PCs are a kind of deputy, or the power of players to affect the plot?

[Vaxalon]

Both.

The in-character authority is a metaphor for the out-of-character authority held by the players.  When the players say that the actions of their Dogs are the will of the King of Life, then it IS.  It's all linked.