Choice of Characters -- Mainly Sidekicks?

[jburneko]

Hello All,

I realize now, I made a serious mistake through out my posts in that I sort of created a wandering topic.  In an attempt to discuss one thing I threw in several things that I thought were related but they were just that, 'related', and not really part of my original thought.

So the 'meat' of what I was getting at was this:

1) Ron said that he has observed that a lot of gamers do not know how to identify a protagonist in the absense of certain cliche verbal and visual cues.  He also said that this leads to players who do a lot of fantasizing about how cool their characters are but that 'coolness' never manifests in actual play.

2) I added the observation that I think the same root problem results in a lot of gamers creating characters largely modeled off of secondary characters, foils, sidekicks, comic relief, 'bang' characters, and even villains.  And then the problem of 'coolness' failing to manifest in actual play is that these characters are only cool when bounced off a proper protagonist which will be lacking in a group made up of these kinds of players.

3) So my question is: How do you identify during character creation that a player is going down the secondary character path?  And once identified, how do you help direct the player into shaping that character into a protagonist without sacrificing the player's vision of why the character is 'cool.'

EXAMPLES include, but are not limited to, The Loner (Sunset Girl), The Shadowy Background Character (Cigarette Smoking Man), The Minor Antagonist (Burke), and The Comic-Relief (C3P0).

I think Sorcerer style Kickers go a HUGE way to aleviate the problem.  But do they work with everything or are there some characters that just aren't, by nature, protagonists?

To address what Christopher said directly, I was primarily concerned with #5 in his post.  That is, the player percieves his character's 'coolness' to come from the fact that the audience (i.e. other players) do not fully know what he's up to.  Whether these 'shadowy machinations' are for or against the other players isn't the issue just the 'off screen'/'hidden agenda' nature of the character.  

But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters.  What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

Finally, I agree with Mike, the issue of static vs. dynamic characters is irrelivant to this discussion.  That was a thought wholey sprung from my personal biases concerning what I enjoy in a story, so let's just forget that angle.

Jesse

[Valamir]

But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters.  What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

I guess I'm a little curious as to why this is even a problem.  If they WANT that role...whats wrong with it.  As long as at least one player takes someone who can clearly fill the role of protagonist having the rest of the group voluntarily take secondary characters sounds like an ideal not a problem.
]

[joshua neff]

In the last two games I ran, one particular Player created, for both games, a comic relief character. He was the jokey screw-up, & the character was played for laughs--until a crucial moment when the PC's story came to a dramatic head. Then the Player would kick in to "major protagonist" mode & become the most rivetting PC in the game. It was amazing to watch.

Another example, from a non-RPG source, would be Xander in Buffy. At first he was played as the comic relief, & he still tends to be seen that way (even within the show by the other characters). But he's really not, he's one of the most important, dramatic characters in the cast.

Is it possible your worrying too much about this Jesse? Regardless of what the character appears to be at the beginning--the laconic cool guy, the comic relief, etc--it's entirely likely the PC will becomes a huge honkin' Protagonist-with-a-capital-P, through dealing with conflict.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, Josh, I think that Jesse has a valid concern in some ways. First, if no player makes a protagonist, that's a big problem (this needs no explanation, right?). And while it's interesting to have that shift from comic-relief character to protagonist when it occurs, I doubt it's something you can rely on. A player making the comic-relief probably wants to stick with comic-relief, and given that this will vary from player to player, I wouldn't count on it.

Even if a player decides that they do want to be the comic-relief, they should understand that they will have less protagonism. I've seen this become a problem. A player creates such a character, and then, when they are not a focus of the story, they complain. Players need to understand the role that certain roles should play. If you take a sidekick character, expect to get the sidekick's amount of spotlight. The worst is the player who creates the "cool loner with no problems and who doesn't care about anything", who then complains that the game is boring when he refuses the GM's plot hooks. This is a terrible problem. If a player wants a nascent protagonist, this should be decided early, too, or stated explicitly when the decision is made.

I find it surprising that players can't see these potential problems, but they don't. All I'm saying is that a player and GM should discuss the character's role in the storyline, and how the player is going to enjoy himself through the character. It all just needs to be a conscious part of game prep and development. But, given that understanding, I have no problem with players who don't want to play the pure protagonist. As long as I have at least one in the group who does.

(This goes for most Sim and Gamist as well as Narr; usually you are Simming story or setting that require heroic characters. Imagine a supers game with all sidekicks.)

Mike

[joshua neff]

Good point, Mike.

[Walt Freitag]

This thread reminds me of a paper I wrote for one of those "Heroic Traditions in Western Literature" college courses. In the old heroic traditions the heroes were not behavioral role models. The heroes embodied certain abstract ideal qualities but the stories also went to great lengths to distance the hero from the common man (or even the common warrior) in the audience. You weren't born supernaturally, cast out by a usurper and fostered in a foreign land, etc., nor can you leap fifty feet or wear ox skulls for shoes or whatever. So don't think you can just go around acting like a hero -- and be glad of that, because Fate has the hero's downfall already mapped out. The role models in the oldest legends weren't the heroes; they were the seconds or sidekicks. You can't be like Cuchulainn, but the songs tell you you can (and should!) be like Loeg mac Riangabr.

What does this have to do with characters in RPGs? I think a trace of the idea of the protagonist as not-entirely-human and therefore inaccessible persists in our more recent literature. Though there's no practical reason why a player cannot role-play a supernatural hero or a character with superhuman abilities, playing a true protagonist still raises two concerns. One is that the player will be unable to "get into" the character. "But," says the player, "I never had to watch my family get burned alive by barbarian raiders, how can I possibly role-play a character who has something like that in his background?" The second is that deep protagonists often lead very constrained lives. Mythic heroes are pushed around by Fate from the get-go, and even modern protagonists experience it to some degree. Buffy gets to make few decisions compared with Xander and Willow. (In fact, Buffy's whole premise recently has become a self-conscious exploration of the conflict between real life and the constraints of protagonism.)

Here's the thing: both of these concerns apply to play in Actor Stance. Sidekick-style characters can be an adaptation for players that helps them to (1) be able to "stay in character" better, and (2) resist railroading. The irresponsible rogue at least gets to pretend it's his decision whether or not to go on the quest to save the world (again); the Hero of the Realm doesn't. This habit becomes unnecessary in non-railroady game styles (including unabashed Gamism), and it becomes maladaptive in self-conscious Narrativist play, where Actor Stance performance isn't as emphasized and it's OK for the player-character to be pushed around by fate because it's the player, as fate, doing the pushing.

- Walt

[jburneko]

Hey,

Just for clearity I want to say that I agree with Mike.  I think it's entirely possible to effectively create and play a sidekick style character if the player fully understands that.  But I'm harkening back to Ron's original point that most don't.  And I also agree with Mike that this, I think, can cause problem's across all modes of play.

Jesse

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jesse,

Okay.  I think we're mixing up issues again, so I'm going ...  well, I don't know what I'm going to do, but here we go:

1) Sidekicks / Comic Relief: Since the Grand Survey of Role Playing Game Habits hasn't been done yet, I'd offer that phrases like "most don't" are dangerous -- if only because in my Chicago group we'd often divide up cast responsibilites -- and this often meant playing sidekicks, and we did it well and effectively. I don't think there's a plague of this sidekick as problem out there in the world -- if only because I've never seen it.

I'd offer that if the players are creating "sidekicks" but not playing them as such, it's because they don't know they've created sidekick characters (so couldn't play them as sidekicks anyway) and the real problem is a passivity on the part of the players.  (After all, C3PO has been featured as a protagonist in comic book stories -- so no character is fixed -- it's a matter of situation.)

So I think the issue is the players and what they want to do with their characters.

2)  Back to Jesse's main question: this (to me) incomprehensible idea that the players want to create characters who want to do things out of eyesight of other players, characters.

Before we can go on:

Jesse: do you mean to say the players A) literally won't have their characters do cool things if other *players* are present to witness the description of the events; or B) won't have their character take action with other player characters around.

If B, is the solution simply to avoid trying to get the party to stop being the "multi-legged-adventuring-beast."

If A.... I really don't know.  You seem to be suggesting these people want to play one-on-one with a GM. Is this actually the case.

Because for both of these circumstances talk of sidekicks and comic relief are moot.  C3PO and R2D2 carry the story at the start of Star Wars till Obi Wan shows up.  The real issue is, do your players actaully want to play with other human beings.

Looking forward to the answer to these mysteries,
Christopher

[jburneko]

Hello Christopher,

Hmmm... I know that "most don't" isn't a prime choice of words.  I always mean (and take it to mean) in my experience...  And I'm largely talking about the issue that Mike describes where a player creates and plays a fundamentally secondary character role and then can't figure out why he isn't as effecitve/as cool as he thought he would be/isn't satisfied with the experiece/isn't more central to the action/whatever.

A SUBSET or more precisely, an example, of this secondary character situation is the one I call "The Shadowy Background Character"  When it comes to the situation you are describing I am very much talking about (A) but it isn't because the character wants a one-on-one game or doesn't want to have other players.  Without other players, his character concept is defeated.  The reason the player percieves this kind of character to be cool is because of his ability to pull the wool over the other player's eyes.  He enjoys passing notes to the GM and droping hints to the other players and his 'coolness' is increased everytime the players, and I do mean THE PLAYERS, fail to figure out or are even aware of the specific player's shadowy operations.  The more wrong guesses and false assumptions the other players make about the character's activities and motivations the, 'cooler' his character becomes in the player's eyes.

Just think of a deep imersionist hard core character-based simulationist who REALLY wants to play The Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files and you'll be spot on with the kind of player I'm talking about.

Now this all sounds very malicious and disruptive but I maintain it doesn't have to be, if caught early on and given some focus, direction and purpose.   And I'm curious about what techniques can be used for identifying and shaping such situations for ALL secondary character situations, not just this specific example.

Jesse

[Valamir]

In one of my early RPG groups there was a very effective solution for that type of play...such characters were killed quickly, mercilessly, and with little to no actual evidence of wrong doing.  The general rule was "3 secret notes to the GM = Axe in the head while sleeping".

That's somewhat tongue in cheek, but in seriousness, unless the game was structured to be *about* that sort of thing (like Paranoia) such activity was largely undesireable.  By undesireable I mean designed for that single players enjoyment without consideration for the enjoyment of the rest of the group.  Such "selfish" play was dealt with harshly in that group.  On the other hand, the same group was not above playing dumb as a thief merrily pickpocketed people...as long as it was done in the open and all players could enjoy the sneakery.

[lehrbuch]

Hello,

...do you mean to say the players A) literally won't have their characters do cool things if other *players* are present to witness the description of the events; or B) won't have their character take action with other player characters around.

I've played in a couple of really good Vampire games where there was a lot of out-of-the-room plotting between individual players and the GM.  These were long term games that ran for a number of years.

It worked well, I think, because the resolution of these plots was conducted openly.  It was only the lead up to them that was hidden.  When events happened in the game it was often tricky to determine which characters were responsible.  "Secret" plotting really helped us as players get into the mindset of paranoid, backstabbing characters.

[Le Joueur]

A SUBSET or more precisely, an example, of this secondary character situation is the one I call "The Shadowy Background Character"  When it comes to the situation you are describing I am very much talking about (A) but it isn't because the character wants a one-on-one game or doesn't want to have other players.  Without other players, his character concept is defeated.  The reason the player percieves this kind of character to be cool is because of his ability to pull the wool over the other player's eyes.  He enjoys passing notes to the GM and droping hints to the other players and his 'coolness' is increased everytime the players, and I do mean THE PLAYERS, fail to figure out or are even aware of the specific player's shadowy operations.  The more wrong guesses and false assumptions the other players make about the character's activities and motivations the, 'cooler' his character becomes in the player's eyes.
[Snip.]
Now this all sounds very malicious and disruptive but I maintain it doesn't have to be, if caught early on and given some focus, direction and purpose.   And I'm curious about what techniques can be used for identifying and shaping such situations for ALL secondary character situations, not just this specific example.

Actually, I just put up a Technique in Scattershot for just exactly this kind of play.  We call it Mystique and Intrigue.  The problem is traditional gaming had only the gamemaster have these "Shadowy Background Characters."  After playing some really inspired games (and a brief epiphany I tried to put into a thread in a nearby forum), I started allowing this kind of character into the players hands.  I've been trying to perfect the Technique ever since.  

I've played in a couple of really good Vampire games where there was a lot of out-of-the-room plotting between individual players and the GM.  These were long term games that ran for a number of years.

It worked well, I think, because the resolution of these plots was conducted openly.  It was only the lead up to them that was hidden.  When events happened in the game it was often tricky to determine which characters were responsible.  "Secret" plotting really helped us as players get into the mindset of paranoid, backstabbing characters.

That's exactly it, except have you ever considered allowing the players to do this kind of thing (or have this kind of character) in the absence of gamemaster knowledge?  Make the gamemaster have to 'figure it out' too?  That has made for some really mind-blowing games for us.  (And yes, it requires a commitment to not 'screw over' any of the other participants; that's why Scattershot has such explicit Proprietorship Mechanix.)

And while I'd really love to get into a discussion about using characters with their own Mystiques, I don't think that's what this thread was for.  However, there are another couple of ideas we put into Scattershot to deal with exactly these kinds of issues.  We're starting to look at splitting out the Precipitating Event idea from Scattershot's Sine Qua Non Technique into two things; the first is that event that (as remarked above) put the character on the 'god-like' hero fate-path, the second is something that creates a Mystique for the character to face 'right away.'  (Like a Kicker, except less intrinsically Narrativist.)

I believe an unstated problem that's being addressed here has to do with player ambition.  (As in 'how hard do they want it,' meaning 'interesting' play.)  To meet this need, we added the Commitment dimension to the Scattershot Gaming Model.

Now your basic Ambition gamer needs very little prodding to get him to play the classic protagonist (perhaps a little orientation, but scarse more).  However, these are rare beasts; more often you'll be confronted with Intentional players.  They want to play, but lack the ambition to really go out there and...well, protagonize.  I find they need a little prodding, or perhaps must be made more central to the conflict inherent in the game (so they're 'forced' to sort it out); often times, as a gamemaster, I 'give them the ball' (the thing or quality everyone is fighting over) to get things going with them 'in charge.'

It turns out you have to be really careful when considering hooking a Passive player into such machinations; you can lose them as a player really quick if they don't want to be the center of attention.  In fact, it has been my experience with exactly this phenomenon that made me sensitive to player Commitment.

Generally, I find that a negotiation is a much better way to start a game with 'protagonists.'  I get a feel for what the group is creating and then take one or two of them aside and see if they'll accept the 'central role.'  Around that I craft the primary Mystiques of the game.  I find this a lot less dysfunctional than sifting through character write-ups for 'hooks' to drag them into the role of protagonist.

Sine Qua Non and Mystiques are just how I solve the 'before-play who's the protagonist paradox' as a gamemaster (and how we do as game designers, my wife and I).  This is not meant to be some universal prescription, just an opinion.

Fang Langford

[Julian Kelsey]

But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters.  What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

I think that a lot of comic play depends on author and director stance. Offering a player a way of choosing those positions without diminishing their capacity to act in general is important.

I'm thinking in terms of a game that tries to balance player involvement by balancing character capacity. Ending up with every character aimed at being some sort of hero.

Perhaps allow players to designate an apparent value lower than the characters effective value. So C3PO might have a low apparent value for insight but a high effective value.

The comedy comes into play in two ways, the player can elect to use the lower value when they want to fail (author stance), or they can use the higher value and narrate circumstances of success inspite of the low apparent value (director stance).

This should give the players a fair balance in capacities without requiring the characters to appear as heroes. It also forces them to think about just what humour they want to employ and frame it in terms of game mechanics, then perhaps via that game mechanical path they'll become involved more thoroughly in play.

Julian Kelsey.

[Le Joueur]

I'm thinking in terms of a game that tries to balance player involvement by balancing character capacity. Ending up with every character aimed at being some sort of hero.

I think this is a false parallel.  I have (on at least one occasion) worked to prove that these are not a good fit.  Giving someone the capability will not make them use it.  Balancing efficacy would only work if everyone were equally motivated.

The second choice after this one seems to be coming up with something that balances 'screen time' or 'story control,' but again this suffers heavily from motivational inequity.  The third choice would then probably be some esoteric system for balancing character 'importance' to the 'story direction.'  And so on.

I think what all this fails to note is that 'you can lead a horse to water....'  I'm not sure that it is attractive to try to mechanize the 'balance' of player involvement.

Because that effectively takes 'control' out of the player's hands and that means

they have less involvement.[/list:u]I think it would be better to equip the group with tools to manipulate involvement when 'it does not fit' for them, and information to make them sensitive to this situation.  Mechanically forcing involvement is antithetical to fun, I think (in some cases, at least).

Fang Langford

[damion]

One reason I think players may base characthers off side kicks is that protagonists are to well know, to well developed. A jedi based off of Luke would be seen as 'derivative' or 'poor role playing'. Also the player might feel locked into what has been done before.  
      Basing a characther off a sidekick gives a known starting point for the characther, but allows the player to develope the character themselves. Also, players may not want to be a protagonist right away. Perhaps they feel uncomfortable with the setting/their charachter. Thus, being a sidekick for a while gives them a chance to grow into it, but they can still be a protagonist later when the characther is more developed.  Even C3PO had flashes of protaganism. He managed to bluff Storm Troopers pretty well on the Death Star.  

    I think the problem is not have explicit mechanics for protaganism, but getting the GM to have an understanding of players goals for it. This is complicated by the fact that players may  have trouble explicitly stating these goals and the fact that if a player explictily states a goal to the GM, then they feel somewhat commited to it, as they know the GM will work toward it. However the players goals may change over time; but one can see how this could be fustrating for the GM.

Comment on the 'secret paranoid games'. This is one of those things that probably should be explicitly stated as part of the game. I know as a player I would feel cheated if a large number of things happend I didn't know about. This is because there is one GM, so when a characther is not activly doing something one can at least enjoy watching other parts of the story. Thus, if I was denied knowledge of large parts of the story on a regular basis without knowing this ahead of time, I would feel somewhat cheated.  Maybe I'm just weird or something. (Probably should be a seperate thread actually)