Choice of Characters -- Mainly Sidekicks?

[jburneko]

Down in the Sorcerer Forum Ron wrote...

Many role-players, I think, have not learned to read well (or view movies well) - they can see that a protagonist thinks X, Y, and Z when it's verbalized in italic prose or delivered in voice-over; they can see that an antagonist is "bad" when he performs a tag-scene or mouths a tag-line that establishes him as such (beating up a henchmen, or saying, "... the price is worth the knowledge it will bring," respectively). They do not do so well when the information is being delivered strictly through non-expository dialogue and through action. Ask anyone what the story of Deliverance is - most of the time, all you'll get is a sniggering account of the rape scene.

Such a person is going to have a lot of trouble with protagonism - simultaneously desiring it greatly and fearing it greatly. He or she will derive great pleasure from fantasizing, out of play, about what a cool character they have, but will shy away from any Kicker-style play or protagonist-style decision-making.

This ties in very much with something I've been thinking about lately.  It came to my attention that more often than not a lot of roleplayers will create characters that, in books and films, are normally background or secondary characters for their PCs.  In fact when discussing RPG Theory with fellow players it is the number one objection I get when I talk about constructively using out-of-character information to further the plot.  The objection is usually something like, 'But if the other players saw what I was up to when their characters weren't present my whole character concept would be ruined.'  I then ask them to describe the character to me and what I get is a character that in most films or novels would be some kind of shadowy mysterious background character and not a protagonist.  There is a common misconception that a character is a protagonist because he is a PC and that's all that's required.

So, I thought about it some more and realized that this is very pervasive in role-playing culture.  In films and books if you ask a gamer what character they identify with or who they would want to be, it's RARELY the protagonist.

Most gamers would rather be Han Solo or even C3P0 than Luke Skywalker from Star Wars.  They would rather be Burke than Ripley from Aliens.  They would rather be The Cigarette Smoking Man than Mulder or Scully from The X-Files.  They would rather play Morpheus than Neo from The Matrix.  And they create characters to match when it comes to similar roleplaying situations.

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon?  Or is it just my circle of gamers.

In any event, I think this ties DIRECTLY into the fantasizing about coolness but no real in-game coolness emerging because all these characters NEED a protagonist to play off of, to demonstrate their 'coolness.'  In fact, I highly suspect that what makes these characters so cool in the eyes of their players is that in the source inspiration these characters are somehow above or beyond the petty moral problems that the protagonist is forced to deal with.  These characters have already decided who they are and where they want to be.  For better or worse, these characters have their shit together.  Their players want the oportunity to demonstrate equal 'detachment' and 'neutrality' but they can't without a protagonist to play off of.

A related issue is what I call the, 'One Image Wonder' where the player has a clear image of the character in some situation but that situation is usually a depiction of the characters removal from action and a representation of their inner termoil.  My current Werewolf game has such a character.  When I asked her, 'What do you see your character doing?'  She told me she sees the character alone on a cliff overlooking a beach with the sun setting over the water.

What is going on with these players?  How can we fulfill their fantasies in actual play?  What do they need to fuel their imagination and creativity, in actual play?

Jesse

[Valamir]

I think you're spot on.  Its the same reason why most fans would pick Strider as being a far cooler character to play than one of the hobbits (cept me, I personally thought Strider was a huge whiny baby...Boramir...now he was cool).

Haveing been doing a lot of reading into the nature of the western and its enduring popularity, I'll add the following comment.  Part of what makes westerns so popular is that the features which you recognize as being maximum cool but typically relegated to secondary characters are often the featured character in the western.  The mysterious stranger, the reticence, the lone wolf image, the sense of aloofness, of being personally above whatever petty squabble he's being drawn into.

I don't know that I have a real answer to your question, but my best suggestion would be to look to the western for inspiration.  If the western's bread and butter is taking those types of figures and making protagonists of them, you might find something useful in exploring how they manage to do that.

[Matt Snyder]

(EDIT: CHEAP PLUG!!! -- If you're gonna check out Westerns as Valamir suggested, check out my game Dust Devils!)

Yes, I have absolutely encountered this! It's actually something I was just thinking about, though certainly not worded in this way.  Basically, I was trying to figure out how to get my players to create compelling characters, rather than the usual suspects of ass-beaters and drow ranger clones ... well, not actually, but you get the idea.

I think the problem is analagous to the issue of color and setting -- something I had such a hard time seeing past when I first visited the Forge, and now value as the one insight I can best apply to improve my gaming.

What I mean is, I think many players & GMs get all glassy eyed when presented with some far-out, kewl setting or character concept. Obviously, the problem is that there's no meat on the character's bones, no substance (same could be said of games w/ great settings and poorly done systems).

Now, since my group is fairly mature, we've approached some kind of intermediate stage in which they've created a fine character concept, even one with some meat on his bones, but that's it. They don't intend to move that character in any meaningful direction.

I had a near-revelatory discussion with one of my fellow players about his character the other day. The character had died, MUCH to his dismay, so we talked about it. One question I posed to him was, why should I let him go back. (Or, as the simulationist in me said, "Why should the gods let him return?"). He suggested this and that, when I pointed out that some MAJOR change must be required in this death -- that death was a metaphor for transformation.

Now, his character is a very able elf mage, who has acted throughout the campaign as a snotty, noble ass, even to his fellow party members who have saved him on more than one occasion. I pointed out that in order to justify an arcane resurrection, he'd need to role-play toward rectifying that relationship with his companions. He agreed that doing so would make the character much more interesting and challenging (read: fun) to play.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is this: Player characer (i.e. protagonists) need to be dynamic. They need to experience significant change / transformation. However, many players approach characters as monolithic caricacatures -- personalities they might competently role-play (by which I mean character-acting), but not personalities they see as capable of revision and transformation in play.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

The trouble with using the western model is that a few minutes into the film, the "mysterious detached loner" has become re-attached. Clint's famous Man With No Name is a perfect example. He doesn't stay aloof or uncommitted. He gets in there, tries to help people out, gets his ass kicked for him, and finally does all manner of stuff, placing himself at risk "for no reason," to clinch his attachment. Mad Max in The Road Warrior presents exactly the same picture. Yes, both characters do not stay with the community they are helping, but they go to the wall for its benefit - their commitment, in a very real way, constitutes the meat of the story.

In other words, the western offers very little hope for the role-player who would like his fellow role-players to do "protagonist" stuff. Its answer is, "Be a protagonist even if the opening shot of the film suggests otherwise."

The good news is that people can't talk about this stuff very easily, and so dialogue like Jesse's question to his players may not be revealing as much resistance as it seems.

For instance, the "gazing at the sunset" player may well just be thinking in terms of the Establishing Shot, in full (but unverbalized knowledge) that when the Crunch comes, she'll swing into highly-individualized action without fail. Given only a vague context for the question ("What do you see your character doing?"), she withholds information about what the character would do if she cared, and sticks with the Establishing Shot. I've noticed this trend (again, entirely unverbalized and unself-conscious) among many players.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is this: Player characer (i.e. protagonists) need to be dynamic. They need to experience significant change / transformation. However, many players approach characters as monolithic caricacatures -- personalities they might competently role-play (by which I mean character-acting), but not personalities they see as capable of revision and transformation in play.

Total agreement.  This is the second, subsequent spin off problem of the one I first posed.  The non-evolving character syndrome.  Players often seem to have an inability to tell the difference between an action that is 'out of character' and an action that represents character evolution.  If they see their character as 'greedy' then ANY act of generosity is considered out-of-character rather than as a plot moving act of character transition.

I think this has been brought up once before as being an inability to distinguish between 'character' and 'characterization.'

Jesse

[xiombarg]

For instance, the "gazing at the sunset" player may well just be thinking in terms of the Establishing Shot, in full (but unverbalized knowledge) that when the Crunch comes, she'll swing into highly-individualized action without fail. Given only a vague context for the question ("What do you see your character doing?"), she withholds information about what the character would do if she cared, and sticks with the Establishing Shot. I've noticed this trend (again, entirely unverbalized and unself-conscious) among many players.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything that's been said in this thread so far. This is definately a trend I see in a lot of players, and, frankly, I find it very frustrating as a GM.

Admittedly, perhaps I should let the guy who wants to hang back and look cool do that since that's what he enjoys. But then people complain when the people who do something (i.e. the protragonists) get all the attention.

I guess I have to repeat the question of this thread: Okay, it's something a lot of roleplayers do. What should we do about it?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jesse,

I just want to add that it's not just your players.  And it's not just RPGers.

In my screenwriting program I know my teachers spend an awlful lot of time trying to get people to stop writing ten pages of their protagonist alone.  Why?  I don't know.  Many people attracted to writing and games are introverts, and they imaging their characters doing introverted things?  I don't know.

(This, by the way, works great for the introverted medium of the novel -- you create it alone, you consume it alone, and it's great for hanging out in the middle of a character's head while action happens somewhere out there.)

RPGs are more like dramatic narrative (film and theater) where character is revealed through action and intereaction with other people.

What makes loners deal with other people?  Well, there's need.  A Kicker provides a need.

There's attachment to other characters.  (I know this flies in the face of their "I'm above it all" (or what you're assuming to be their "I'm above it all.") but if you make it a requirement of play that they care about somebody you're already begun a habit.)  Sorcerer builds this in automatically with Demons, of course.

And finally -- what can I say?  Nar and Sim.  If you're players are really happy sitting there and you're thinking, "Why aren't they proactively doing something....?"  At some point it might be a matter that the group's taste and ambition might be straining.

I would sugguest however, picking up off Ron's comments about Westerns, that give character a crisis and they tend to swing into action.  The beauty of a Kicker is that the player gives the GM solid clues about what kind of actions and crisis they want to play, so they probably won't bounce it out of hand.

Take care,
Christopher

[jburneko]

Hey,
For instance, the "gazing at the sunset" player may well just be thinking in terms of the Establishing Shot, in full (but unverbalized knowledge) that when the Crunch comes, she'll swing into highly-individualized action without fail. Given only a vague context for the question ("What do you see your character doing?"), she withholds information about what the character would do if she cared, and sticks with the Establishing Shot. I've noticed this trend (again, entirely unverbalized and unself-conscious) among many players.

Bingo!  Thanks Ron.  That's the word I was looking for.  I can tell that the character is HIGHLY emotionally charged and has one of the greatest story 'potential energy' in the group but every bang I've layed down just hasn't worked.  She's just withdrawn in anger from every point of adversity.  So that's why I asked the, 'What do you see your character doing?' question and I left off the most important part of the question, which would be, 'What would your character actually CARE about?'

Okay, well now that, that one point is sorted out, I'd still like the explore the secondary character/non-evolving character problem.  Is this caring solution all that's really needed or do these characters need major over hauls in general?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Well, that's what the Sorcerer Kicker is for, essentially. It's designed to deliver both information and content into the game that transforms the character from a noun into a verb, and it puts the direct responsibility for this transformation into the hands of the player.

On occasion, in practice, people do try to wriggle out of this responsibility ("Um, I get a mysterious letter in a language I can't read"), but more often, or perhaps with a little nudging, people get inspired.

I hope folks won't mind the name-dropping that's about to follow ...

I think it's significant that the designers and frequent GMs of two violent, action-packed, very atmospheric RPGs both responded identically to the Kicker when they read it in Sorcerer.

    "I love that!"
    "Damn, I wish we had that in our game!"
    "I'm going to use these from now on!"
    - Jake Norwood (The Riddle of Steel) and Dav Harnish (Obsidian)

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Damn twitch finger. I had a nice little post in reply, when I managed to hit quit accidentally, rather than close another window.

I was going to say something like:

Ron nailed it: Make the player care. Then you can sit back and watch them move.

Now, finding out how to do that is the big question. In the case of your Sunset-gazer, I can imagine she idealizes a beautiful world and her place in it. Harmony. That's what Werewolf's all about, no? So, figure out what that "place" is and twist it. Maybe the Wyrm wreaks havoc on her literal or figurative haven. Maybe another 'wolf tribe/clan/whatever-it's-called actually does the havoc-wreaking, and more role-playing opportunities present themselves. Say, for example, that these other 'wolves destroy her home or Caern or some such because they saw it as part of a greater good (not sure that jives w/ "proper" Werewolf, but bear w/ me). So, now you have conflict between our idyllic gazer and the crusading 'wolves.

Not sure that's as concrete as it should be to help, but I hope you catch my drift. Be sneaky if you have to, or be damned blunt about it, but figure out what the hell it is your player cares about, then put the squeeze on it, pronto (i.e, create some conflict about which they give a damn!).

[Valamir]

Hey,

The trouble with using the western model is that a few minutes into the film, the "mysterious detached loner" has become re-attached. Clint's famous Man With No Name is a perfect example. He doesn't stay aloof or uncommitted. He gets in there, tries to help people out, gets his ass kicked for him, and finally does all manner of stuff, placing himself at risk "for no reason," to clinch his attachment. Mad Max in The Road Warrior presents exactly the same picture. Yes, both characters do not stay with the community they are helping, but they go to the wall for its benefit - their commitment, in a very real way, constitutes the meat of the story.

Actually, that's not a problem, that's the point I was making.  That the western protagonist starts with all of this dark mysterious aloofness that many players like to imbue their starting characters with, and THEN they get involved.  I was suggesting that the various means used in westerns to accomplish this might be a good starting point to look for hooks to dress up and present.  In otherwords, how to engage these characters without them having to lose those features that made them attractive to the player to begin with.

[jburneko]

Hmmm... Well, we seem to have the 'loner' problem covered and, yes, Kickers are sheer genious and I may have made the mistake with my Werewolf game in that I applied the Kicker concept at the group level, rather than the character level, however, this doesn't address the initial issue.

The initial issue I brought up considers characters that *DO* care about something but that something isn't befiting a protagonist, if that makes any sense.  Like the Burke character from Aliens.

There's something here I'm trying to get at that obviously isn't being clearly articulated.  Any insights?

Jesse

[xiombarg]

There's something here I'm trying to get at that obviously isn't being clearly articulated.  Any insights?

I dunno if this is an insight, but the fact that the "mysterious loner" type is usually very "together" and "in control" perhaps speaks to a power fantasy that a lot of roleplayers engage in, but aren't willing to admit. That is, they don't want to deal with the sort of issues a protagonist deals with because they get enough of that in real life.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jesse,

Maybe you aren't being clear -- because my brain rattled off five possible sources of the problem.  So I'll describe what I think you might be talking about, adding, in some cases, counter arguments (the problem really isn't a problem) and solutions where I can.


1) Burke seems to have fine proactive energy.  (He's working against the group, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish -- but that doesn't seem to be what you're addressing.)

His Kicker is clear -- as a corporate man looking for a big score that will help him leap past the corporate big wigs, he's put in charge of babysitting a woman who's been in hypersleep for 57 years spouting a crazy tale of biological terrors -- that could be worth a fortune -- that nobody believes.  But what if it's true.  He takes action to investiage this via the colonists, then BANG the colonoists are out of contact, and organizes a crew to go investigate himself.

So maybe its a matter perspective.  I see quite a lot here that's active. So maybe I am missing what you mean by using Burke as an example.

Or is the problem...

2) In your first post it seemed as if he real problem is that the players don't want to interact with other characters or take action with other characters present.  (Is this why you're using Burke as the example?)

You wrote the players say, "But if the other players saw what I was up to when their characters weren't present my whole character concept would be ruined."

Now, this is a loner type, but it still might be a loner type who cares about something.  Examples include, Batman, The Shadow, Spider-Man, Frank Serpico and so on... A loner protagonist breed. Small in number, but they're there.

Now, if this the problem, individual Kickers with lots of cross cutting and scene framing might well be the solution.

Or is it...

3) If you're using Burke as an example, and he's esentially a bad guy (worse than the alien queen really, cause he's willing to sell out his species for cash, and she'd never do that), and so he's not a protagonist in a "good guy" sense and that's what you mean by not being a protagnist?

Or could it be...

4) The whole protagonists "change" thing.  I'd offer some do, some don't.  Batman is pretty much Batman.  (Dark Knight is cool cause now he's different.)  Spider-Man changes -- over the years of publishing.  In a single issue he gets emotinal -- but not seriously altered.  James Bond.  Certain heroes just stay the same.  That's fine too.

But I think you'll find that change works best when focused through some sort of Premise (will he choose love or not?) and through play.

This might tie into possibility 3.  Are you expecting the protagonists to become "better" people.  To improve?  Note that Ripley starts selfish, but becomes selfless.  The alien queen is selfless and remains so.  Burke has plenty of chances to change his way -- but doesn't.  That's his character's story.  Remaining the same is a story as well if there's something at stake on the table.

I don't think a good RPG Premise question is based on a choice between a Good Way to Be and a Bad Way to Be.  It should be a good, terrible choice.  So if you're referring to youre "selfish" vs. "generosity" example in your second post, remember that there are plenty of good reasons to be, for example, selfish.

My question to you (if I'm reading your second post correctly, and I might not be), are you expecting your players to change their characters, and if so why?  That's their business.  You may know which way you'd choose, or like other people to choose, but the point of a story is to discover which way a character chooses under pressure.  And if they remain selfish -- well, that's the character.

Or perhaps (though I don't think it's this one, but it might be...)

5) The less the matter of protagist but the actual mechanical issue quoted above: that is, these players litterly want no on to see what their character does except them and (maybe) you?  That is, they really think that revealing what their character does to the other players "ruins" the concept -- when, in fact, you might make it clear that by revealing what they're character is doing to the "audience" of players not in the scene, they're  sharing how cool their character is.

I bring this last one up, because this has nothing to do with whether the character is a loner, and everything to do with whether the player is actually going to play in front of the other players at all. (Which is, of course, a huge, if not mind-boggling, issue.)

I'd offer that if the scenes are played out, rather than just told, the OOC stuff become active and engaging, and not just data.

The trick is the other players might get board.  This is solved by the tool of the capital P Premise.  It's not just a thematic tool.  It's something that evey player has a vested interest in (ie, "How's Jenny going to handle this?  Is she going to be selfish, or giving??)

I have no idea how your group might react to Premise or whether you're using it already.  But that's a solution.

Anyway,

Those are the things I thought you might be talking about.  I'm hoping it gets us closer to finding useful ideas.

Take care,

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

Player characer (i.e. protagonists) need to be dynamic. They need to experience significant change / transformation. However, many players approach characters as monolithic caricacatures -- personalities they might competently role-play (by which I mean character-acting), but not personalities they see as capable of revision and transformation in play.

Total agreement.  This is the second, subsequent spin off problem of the one I first posed.  The non-evolving character syndrome.  Players often seem to have an inability to tell the difference between an action that is 'out of character' and an action that represents character evolution.  If they see their character as 'greedy' then ANY act of generosity is considered out-of-character rather than as a plot moving act of character transition.

I think this has been brought up once before as being an inability to distinguish between 'character' and 'characterization.'

Jesse

This is being mis-stated, IMO.

Characters do not have to be dyamic. Not even a bit, static protagonsts are as valid as any other. My favorite example is Conan. Conan never changes even a little, with the possible exception of aging. Most superheroes are like this. What is neccessary is that the character encounter significant conflict that is important to the character. And then whether he changes or does not change is one of the most important points of the story.

Certain characters are much better when they don't change. What would you think of Batman if he were to resolve his lifelong conflict with the nature of crime, and hung up his cape? Or became a bad guy. Or started wearing orange. That would suck. Batman is cool because of his indelible problems, and enduring identity. (I know it's a bad film, but that's the point of the title and theme of "Batman Forever").

Ron quoted Egri recently as saying something like, the protagonist is the rock over which the waves of story break. It's the character's traits which are important, but they do not have to change. They need only be highlighted by the conflicts of the story.

The characters to be avoided in RPGs are those that are so aloof and have their shit so together, that they never see conflict. Or who are so lightly built in terms of assailable traits that they cannot shine when put up against the backdrop of the conflict.

Just wanted to make that distinction.

Mike