Importance of Characters

[Scripty]

Before the conversation moves towards whether or not system matters, I'd like to extend thanks for all the really helpful ideas I've gotten here. I was hoping for some input here and certainly have not been let down. Thanks a bunch to everyone for taking time out of their day to jumpstart my brainpan.

Ben's idea of the use of "Secrets" is great as is his suggestion of 3's (borrowed as he admits from Jared). I'll most likely be using those ASAP. My group loves the idea of Signature Items, as they are items that the PCs can rely on forever.

Also Ian Charvill and Kaare's advice for "Build Depth as You Go" approaches may come in helpful. This kind of approach could certainly fit in with our use of Drama Points, either as a way for characters to spend or earn them.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

'Scuse me - please take the system mattering or not mattering issue to another thread for that purpose. Marco, help us stay on track with Scripty's issues in this one.

Scripty, your question about a sketchy character being filled out through play per se is unfortunately too broad. "Can" it work? Yes. Absolutely. I'm an advocate of either providing a background with lots of embedded conflicts, for sketchy characters that become richer during play; or starting with characters full of embedded conflicts, for a sketchy background that becomes richer during play. One of the character creation options in Hero Wars (a game built on the former technique in general) offers a very organized method of allowing a character to begin with only three words on his or her sheet, and becoming a full-fledged written-up character over the first couple of sessions.

However, the technique by itself is not a solution to what you're describing. If the player is used to setting up characters according to a certain conceptual template (survability, effectiveness), then he'll probably just switch from doing that pre-play to doing that during-play, with no particular change in the behavior that's bugging you.

In other words, if you want to have characters' histories get filled in through play itself, for purposes of getting richer and more-involved characters in general, then the players have to want to play characters of that sort. Again and again in your posts, I'm seeing a very strong tendency for you to ask, "How can I make them want what I want?"

And perhaps here's where the System thing is throwing people - no game system is, itself, going to make anyone want to do anything. It can at best provide a nifty pattern of relationships among its mechanisms to inspire new behavior - at best. More likely, the person will merely play the way he or she is used to, ignoring the features of a system that don't fit (and likely perceiving them as stupid or weird).

Here's the part of your post that sticks out like a sore thumb, to me:

Being that a number of these players are pretty good friends of mine, I wouldn't want to isolate any of them by selecting a core group of players for a separate, more Narrativist style game. Although I admit that this would probably be the most efficient means of achieving my goal (more player/character driven game sessions).

Oh golly.

Have you considered the notion that the better friends people are, the less likely they are to resent parcelling up social activities (what you call "isolating")?

Furthermore, your "admission" sentence says anything that I'd say - you've proposed the solution to your situation by shooting it down. I suggest picking it up, dusting it off, and taking another look at it.

Best,
Ron

[Kaare_Berg]

I am chastened.

Ron Edwards is right though.

"How can I make them want what I want?" . . .  no game system is, itself, going to make anyone want to do anything . . .  More likely, the person will merely play the way he or she is used to

What I tried to put forward was that one can make the whole transission from  one style to another less painful by letting the players themselves see the benefit of having characters with depth, thus gradually growing that way.

And if these players are friends of yours talk to them. Tell them what you'd like to play.

If some of them do not want to play that game with you, well play that game with those who want to and have another "old school" game going with the reluctant ones. Who knows, maybe they hear from the others how much fun it was and will change their opinions.

But explain your position to them first. If they are your friends they will listen.

Whatever you do do not expect rapid changes. I have played with the same people for over ten years (longest is 14) and I still get characters who are but a sheet of stats and a concept handed to me for approval.

Hell, I even make them from time to time.

[Scripty]

Thanks again Ron and Kaare. I must admit, though, that Ron's post took the wind out of my sails a bit. I have repeatedly had "the discussion" with each of the groups as to the style of play I'm going for. I have had very enthusiastic reactions after each, even to the point that it's becoming old hat. The end result is, however, the same-old-stuff. I tell them about character driven play, how they can help develop the story through their character, help with character generation and then: "Whompf!" "What do we do?"

I don't think it's so much that the group wants something completely different from what I'm going for as it is that they have nothing to gauge it against. They have no idea how to do it. That's where the advice comes in.

Most of these guys, and girls, have been playing rpgs since the '80s. Most of them learned by playing with other people and have a particular mode of play ingrained in their brainpans. Most of them erroneously perceive characters with kewl powers to be characters with depth. There's a disjunct here. They know "how" to play and make characters. But they don't know about "character". A part of me thinks that they don't want to think about it that much, partially because they're so willing (even encouraging) for me to supply their background on their behalf. They want to play and they want to be cool. Most of the time, they want me to just plop them into such situations. I'm hoping to find ideas to empower them.

I could easily trash all three groups by inviting only those who were really interested in playing player-driven games but my end result (minus the complications of hurt feelings) would (and has proven) to be the same: players creating characters that aren't interesting enough (for the players) to drive play. Thus, the onus falls upon me to "make" their characters interesting in the setting. Players won't come to the table with a thief valiantly searching for his lost daughter. They'll come to the table with a thief and, when I ask what they're doing in the setting, they'll stare blankly and say something like: "I'm going to a tavern..." At which point, I will try to clarify that's not what I was going for and eventually we'll whittle it down to searching for a daughter that was lost, etc. Following that, sometimes painful, sometimes futile, process, I'll give a brief cheer that all this is stuff that they could have thought up on their own, without all the nudging. I explain that they don't have to run everything by me, the GM, for it to be okay. Then the process starts all over again. Pavlov has nothing on me. So, perhaps, from my standpoint, the problem isn't so much interest in the concepts as it is understanding the concepts.

And these are the players I know who WANT character-driven play and would sign up for Donjon, Sorcerer or the Pool. And subsequently defer everything over to me at every possible point at which they could. You would think I'm scary looking or something. But I'm not. I'm no more intimidating than a tribble.

I understand how getting a new group (or culling one from the existing groups) would be preferable, but I have tried to pull my own group together in the past along these lines. It met with miserable failure. I went almost a year without running a game of any sort, except for pick-ups of D&D3e or WEG Star Wars when the other GMs were out of town. Even the FLGS owner told me, "What you're going for sounds interesting but most of the kids who pick up this flyer just aren't getting it." After a while, I resuscitated the local Vampire LARP (bringing it from an anemic 3 players back to a healthy 40) using primarily concepts and ideas that I've found here and elsewhere and began my own weekly tabletop game, mostly from the crowd that were either kicked out of the FLGS' longstanding D&D game, those who weren't interested in D&D anyway, those who came over from the LARP and those who have come over from the other two groups because of my new-fangledy ideas about this gamin' bidness. Over the past few years, this group, and the resultant spin-offs, have become friends. I'm hoping not to alienate the group any further. We're already pretty much the Island of Misfit Toys in this town. The die-hard D&D group that plays the same night that we do consistently scratch their heads when they hear what's going on at our tables. "What he rolled a 7 on a Spot and he's still sees something? That ain't right..."

Your suggestion is valid and if I were living back in, say, Atlanta or San Fran, it would even be a no-brainer. But here in BFE Northwest Florida, I don't much see how I can "cull the herd" without (a) ticking people off (most people enjoy my games even if they don't "get it") and (b) winding up right back where I started. "Character driven play" in these parts is primarily thought of as some "White Wolf" thing. That's the most common response I get when new players seek to join. I explain a little of how things go and they say, "So, it's like White Wolf... (or Vampire, or Mage, etc.)". Finding another gamer who has actually heard of Donjon or Sorcerer isn't all that likely. And I do ask around. A lot. At this point, through the FLGS, I am the Adept Press audience of 1 here in Panama City, FL.

So, I'm hoping for some ideas that might help me steer the group or "inspire" the group to be more proactive/protagonistic during play. I appreciate your input, Ron, and, as mentioned before, agree with it from one particular standpoint. But, in my given situation, I don't see it as all that constructive. Maybe that's an aspect of viewpoint. Perhaps, if I closed down the group and were more stringent about what I wanted, I would enlist or attract like minded gamers, eventually. But finding people who "want" to play in this style isn't so much the problem. It's taking people who have the old style ingrained within them and trying to re-tool them to this new way of thinking. After discussion, that's where I think the problem truly lies, in my case.

Hello,
Oh golly.

Have you considered the notion that the better friends people are, the less likely they are to resent parcelling up social activities (what you call "isolating")?

Furthermore, your "admission" sentence says anything that I'd say - you've proposed the solution to your situation by shooting it down. I suggest picking it up, dusting it off, and taking another look at it.

Best,
Ron

Well, it would be different if the players opted out of the experience. It would be different if they were like "Oh well, that's not for me." But they aren't. So it's to a point where I would have to intentionally disinvite a number of individuals based primarily on their capacity to understand what I'm talking about. I would have to sit individuals down, some of whom I've known for 4-5 years, and say "Okay, you either need to do this or leave." or, in some cases, "You can't play in my game anymore."

I would rather, personally, come up with creative ideas to encourage them to understand these concepts, rather than send them off with a hearty "You suck!" and turn them off to games in this style because of it.

I'm hoping to build on what I have. Not tear it down and see what's left standing. But I do appreciate your viewpoint on this issue. I hope this has helped clarify my position as well.

[Kaare_Berg]

Again I am chastened

I don't think it's so much that the group wants something completely different from what I'm going for as it is that they have nothing to gauge it against. They have no idea how to do it. That's where the advice comes in

I wont repeat myself. Just try it gradually. It works, I've done it with some of my players.

Good luck.

[ScottM]

If your players are willing to read up, an excellent website with articles on many topics is Burning Void.  Here are a few about fleshing out characters, motivating them, etc.

3 dimensional character generation article: http://www.burningvoid.com/users/heather/roleplaying/Essays/3dchargen.html

A quick essay on motivated characters- they may not have the back-story at first, but maybe they'll find something more interesting to do than go to the tavern.  http://www.burningvoid.com/users/heather/roleplaying/Essays/selfmot.html

Creating useful characters.  This approaches the idea from the 'far side' perspective of not drowning the GM in too much information- useful for showing how much can be done, and the advantages of it. http://www.burningvoid.com/pipermail/void/2001q1/000013.html

It's a fun site to browse, with many a thoughtful or inspirational essay.  It approaches things from a slightly different perspective than the forge, so you might find a valuable path between them.

Hope they help,
Scott

[Of course, they don't have to 'read up' extensively- you can cut & paste key points onto a sheet, if you want.  It's not really a technique; choosing how to convey the extra options is harder.  But it has content- a 'why bother'- which might encourage your players.]

[Jason Lee]

You have quite the boggle there.  If they actually want to play differently, and just can't figure out how, maybe you're throwing too much change at them all at once.  Too much, it's just plain confusing them.  You could trying easing them into it with familiar ground.  Run a combat driven adventure that requires character motivation.

Play soldiers in a war or something.  Characters can be either a veteran bad-ass who is required to come with a severe emotional flaw of some kind, like a heroin addiction or an ear collection; or a new soldier without the flaw, but also without the skill.  Have combat all over, but give 'em orders like burn all the woman and children in the village.  Have an npc who falls into the new soldier category, who protests the orders.  Follow orders? Or kill the new guy when he turns a gun on the commander?  It could devolve into an evil slay fest, or it could not.  Someone mentioned it (Ben?), but hit 'em with the expectation upfront that none of these soldiers are going to survive the war.  What the players do will decide if the soldiers die as heroes, traitors, villians, or nobodies.

Don't know if it helps, but good luck with whatever you do.

[John Kim]

Most of them erroneously perceive characters with kewl powers to be characters with depth. There's a disjunct here. They know "how" to play and make characters. But they don't know about "character".  A part of me thinks that they don't want to think about it that much, partially because they're so willing (even encouraging) for me to supply their background on their behalf.
...
So, I'm hoping for some ideas that might help me steer the group or "inspire" the group to be more proactive/protagonistic during play. I appreciate your input, Ron, and, as mentioned before, agree with it from one particular standpoint. But, in my given situation, I don't see it as all that constructive.  

OK, the one thing which I note is that the players like kewl powers, but they don't like generating background.  Based on that, here is my suggestion:  make the powers cooler, more powerful, and more involving.  From what I see, you want to empower them but they don't like authorial power per se.  So you can empower them instead through their powers.  Just as an over-the-top example, I played in one campaign in college where all of the PCs were modern-day people in an accident which gave them truly god-like powers -- i.e. capable of changing the world.  This inherently explored character, though, since it is itself a moral/ethical issue.  That is, when given all that power, what do you do with it?  

Drama theory says that background is actually incidental to character.  Character really is defined by plot -- by what the character does in the course of the drama.  You can have a strong character even if you know absolutely nothing about her past.  

To make the PCs pro-active, you need to give them a status quo which is somewhat disatisfactory to them -- and the power to change it.  For example, there might be a rather repressive government which rules over the people.  What do the PCs do?  If it is a stable status quo, this isn't an adventure per se.  You don't need to come up with weird hooks or twists, just make sure that the PCs aren't satisfied with things as they are.

[Scripty]

Thanks Kaare (no need to feel chastened), ScottM, Jason, and John. More great suggestions here. I'll take a look at burningvoid. To date, I hadn't heard of it. Great suggestion John regarding powers/cool factor and a reminder about plot developing character. I'm clipping all of this info so I can properly ingest it and apply it where needed. I've also been reading Bankuei's articles on rpg.net recently. Great ideas on conflict and character there.

It's encouraging to hear that you've been through this already Kaare. Jason may well be right that I'm overloading the players. I tend to be of the immediate gratification alignment and have been known to be rather free with my use of handouts. Perhaps the players knowing their characters' destinies up front (as in Jason's example where they all know they're going to die) could help ease the survivalist mindset a bit. Funny, but that's also in Sword & Sorcerer, where Ron talks about characters' destinies as playing a part in the game. Has anyone used concepts like this in their games? How did it work out in regards to character development and easing players into character development mode?

[Mike Holmes]

I'm confused. You say you have these players who try your wacky one shots. Your sure they would take to this new style if only the veil was lifted from their eyes. They'd really get into Donjon or Sorcerer, if only...

Well what are you running? I see no mention. Have you tried any of the games that Gary mentioned or the ones you mentioned? SOAP? Dust Devils? TROS? Howabout just playing freeform?

If the players are as ready as you seem to think they are, and only need to be shown how, then I'll have to disagree with Jason. Plunge them into a system that will show them what it's like. Head first. Try SOAP. No GM. Players have to come up with characters on their own and the only way to have fun is to characterize and motivate them. No GM to make it all go if they don't. Play once, and I garuntee you you'll be able to communicate better in terms of what your trying to accomplish.

When My Life with Master is available, get a copy and run that. I'd like to see a player try to turtle up in a game like that. Heck, download and play Nicotine Girls tonight. Hard to worry about your combat effectiveness in a game that has no combat system.

Mike

[John Kim]

If the players are as ready as you seem to think they are, and only need to be shown how, then I'll have to disagree with Jason. Plunge them into a system that will show them what it's like. Head first. Try SOAP. No GM. Players have to come up with characters on their own and the only way to have fun is to characterize and motivate them. No GM to make it all go if they don't. Play once, and I garuntee you you'll be able to communicate better in terms of what your trying to accomplish.  

OK, I'm not Scripty -- but my impression is that they don't like authoring background.  He did refer to trying Feng Shui and Over the Edge with them, for example, though not any of the more recent (i.e. post-90's) indy RPGs.  

Personally, I dislike the image of taking players and "plunging" them -- as if they are to be grabbed and manipulated.  It seems to me quite possible that they simply don't enjoy extensive authoring of background, and prefer to play through in-character actions.  Heck, one of my favorite PCs was one which someone else created and wrote the background for.

[Dr. Velocity]

Well Scripts, I really don't have any solutions for you, but can offer my definite empathy and in fact, have found this thread helpful for myself, since I have had the EXACT same problem as you (mostly), and I'm another Jason, so yet one more of us can tell you 'I know how it is, brother'.

I'm in a small town in northeast Oklahoma, and my gaming group consist(s/ed) of two friends my age (30s), and some cousins (20 or younger), though my aunt played for one campaign (that was weird). This was all way before any real boom in this narrative stuff, so we played Warhammer FRP and tried Hero a couple times, and usually my friend Rob ran, but I'm capable of doing it so I would take over when I could, and run so he could play, the Warhammer game... and it worked to an extent but MAN. Exactly what you said, "Okay, we wrote down our dice rolls for our 'character' - now entertain us". I think NEW players, who don't know much about rpgs at all, would be more manageable, than semi-experienced ones who know *something* of RPGs.

As it is, they have that same iron-clad, "Referee throws crap at us, we try to survive and beat it, repeat"  mindset. And so they want creativity and plot and some drama, but 'not a lot', mind you, nothing to get in the way, no cumbersome oaths and responsibilities, no intricate character interaction or backgrounds, etc. Occasionally, they would inadvertently create character depth and background, and everyone would act like an alien dropped onto the table, when one became a chaotic, mentally unbalanced Paladin, or another became a ruthless, blood-thirsty murderer or even a mage avatar of the Hampster God... it was ok, everyone remembered those actions and those characters - but it HAD to be done IN play for them. No one came to the table or during creation, developed Milo, the narcoleptic halfling with a fetish for ceramics, etc. Well me, I had my characters, usually unusual or crazy ideas, and everyone really thought the idea was cool - but the mindset is 'but I don't have time to do that, thats for creative people, I just wanna play'.

And THAT is the killer blow. In my own throw-together homebrew I attempted last, I got some more open-ended characters with more unorthodox playing, but still, there was no real character development (except Rob, the other referee, who's an old hand at rpgs) and so we just sorta 'tabled' role-playing for a while - thats been over two years now so... it takes a PROACTIVE effort by everyone to keep it running - because it can surely break down and sit in the mud if no one makes an attempt.

[anonymouse]

This will be a rather short post compared to the in-depth stuff so far, but..

I really dig the "lifepath" style of character background generation. Some games use this mechanically - MechWarrior comes to mind - but the game I always think of first is Mekton Z, which is the first game I ran across it in.

I'm partial to this because while - like you - I really enjoy coming up with the extensive background stuff that makes the character a character, I find that in most groups I play in, either the rest of the PCs don't care, the GM doesn't, or some combination of both. While dying and losing all that work would be a pain, it's more crushing to never see it get used at all.

Lifepaths are great, then, because it's something random that gives me a very solid skeleton and some muscle. I haven't really "lost" anything if the character dies or the GM glosses over most character history. At the same time, because of the fact that it's random, I'm more attached to the character than if it was just something the GM wrote up; I tend to look at those as "pet characters" that the GM would himself like to play but can't.

Anyway. Check out Mekton Z for the best example I can think of; the lifepaths are tailored to the setting/genre, they don't grant system bonuses (being an orphan doesn't give you +10 Streetwise and you start with 5 credits, for example), and give you a character you can really make your own.

[Clay]

Scripty,

Something that I've noticed in all of your statements is that you are identifying the problem as solidly in the player's court, and with their characters.  You're going to be battering your head against a brick wall trying to change that.

The one thing you can change is what you give the players.  Don't expect them to create characters that magically create deep stories.  Instead, present things that interest the players, and reward them for good play.  Make the story related things the most exciting, and hand out the character advancement rewards for them, not for killing the most things.  

Ultimately, think about it as you would training an animal.  I can tell my cat to ask to come in the house by meowing instead of hanging on the screen, but she won't do it (even though she knows it makes me mad).  By not letting her in when she hangs on the screen, I've stopped her from doing it, and she meows or thumps the glass instead.  Your players are no different; they'll do the thing that gives the reward.

[Marco]

Scripty,

Ultimately, think about it as you would training an animal.  I can tell my cat to ask to come in the house by meowing instead of hanging on the screen, but she won't do it (even though she knows it makes me mad).  By not letting her in when she hangs on the screen, I've stopped her from doing it, and she meows or thumps the glass instead.  Your players are no different; they'll do the thing that gives the reward.

Bring a package of Oreos to the next session. Guard them jealously. When someone does something you like, give them an oreo. Be mysterious but quick about it. Don't reward the same behavior all the time (important!).

Next session tell them play improved "somewhat" but you still didn't get quite the characterization you wanted.

Put a cattle-prod on the table.

Play will improve significantly from that point on.

-Marco