Importance of Characters

[Kaare_Berg]

Lol Marco,

But Clay has a valid point. This kind of mindset changes slowly, and only through encouragement.

Do not neglegt this Scripty, there is no quick fix. You are dealing with people you care about. It dosen't get harder.

[Scripty]

Thanks again to everyone for sharing their experiences and suggestions. I must admit, Marco, I almost coughed up my milk when I read the cattle prod comment. It was interesting that anonymouse brought up "lifepath" systems. The first one I remember was R. Talsorian's (?) Cyberpunk 2020 (man, that's catching up to us!). We had a lot of fun with it back in the day, but there were also a lot of details that were swept under the table. John Kim mentioned that characters are developed through plot. Especially in regards to a character driven plot, I think this might be the best way for me to go. Last campaign, I had all the characters start out by thinking up a Kicker. This worked out pretty well (after the glaze was removed from their expressions) and they really enjoyed this at the onset. Perhaps if I just let them set up their inter-party relationships and get their Kickers together then I can possibly pursue John's suggestion and we can fill in the details of their backgrounds during play (via "Flashback Panels" and whatnot). The only problem with last campaign is that all of their Kickers went separate ways. Therefore, I had 7 mini-campaigns going all at once. It was a bear. I can see this working with 4 or so players. But has anyone ever tried Kickers with groups of 5 or more? Is it possible to do something akin to Kickers in this kind of group?

The reason I'm veering off into this direction a bit is that, after considering John's statement (and Bankuei's articles), it sort of made sense. Not only do the players set up situations that they want resolved, but they also set up challenges, obstacles and choices that they want to roleplay. But how would you use such a method in large groups? Is there a such thing as a "Group Kicker"? Or can a party have 2 players start out with Kickers this week and 3 players start out with Kickers a couple of weeks later?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Scripty,

Depends on what you mean by "group." You might be working with the assumption that the Important Stuff in play occurs when every character is in the same spot with something to do, perhaps even a shared goal. That assumption isn't necessarily justified.

Also, think of Kickers as being quite broad in their potential scope. You can have five player-characters operating in terms of five extremely different Kickers (to take the most tricky case), but a particular session might focus on only two of them in those terms.

It's hard to describe these ideas to people without much experience in multiple-protagonist play, because they have kind of a black-and-white view that says, "Either every character is totally involved, or some players sit out being bored." All I can say is that this viewpoint needs to be broken at its most basic level, which is to say, Just because Character A is not "in action," does not mean that Player A is disengaged.

There are lots of threads on the Forge about playing in the fashion I'm trying to convey, but preparing for GenCon is limiting my ability to thread-hunt ... if someone could look up discussions of scene-cutting and so forth, that would be handy.

Best,
Ron

[Clay]

Scripty,

Doing kicker-based play with four players was about the biggest challenge that I want to experience.   Seven fully-blown story lines is probably a bit much.  I actually prefer having about two different story lines.  One way to handle it was suggested in Sorcerer & Sword, and I liked it a lot, although I haven't used it yet.  With this method, you have a single or a couple of main characters, and other characters acting as the supporting cast.  

If you think about a show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that's a good model.  There's a single star, but there are lots of supporting characters who get their own time in the spotlight, and even their own lesser story lines.  I have seen this done by other game masters with some success.

[John Kim]

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.

Er, I'm not sure how serious people are about this.  Taking it literally, I have some caveats.  This may work for some players, but other players are just plain ornery.  I am an ornery player, for one.   Given that I get a "reward" for doing X, I am just as likely to jump the opposite way.  

For example, the Lord of the Rings RPG rewards XP for "Successful completion of an episode's objective".  I know perfectly well that I'd get more XP if I actively pursued the GM-defined objective.  However, my PC still argued argued against this in the last session, for example.  On the one hand, I guess you could say that my enjoyment isn't particularly hinged on XP.  Beyond this, though, I think I react against the attempt at control.

[Scripty]

Hi Scripty,

Depends on what you mean by "group." You might be working with the assumption that the Important Stuff in play occurs when every character is in the same spot with something to do, perhaps even a shared goal. That assumption isn't necessarily justified.

...

It's hard to describe these ideas to people without much experience in multiple-protagonist play, because they have kind of a black-and-white view that says, "Either every character is totally involved, or some players sit out being bored." All I can say is that this viewpoint needs to be broken at its most basic level, which is to say, Just because Character A is not "in action," does not mean that Player A is disengaged.

There are lots of threads on the Forge about playing in the fashion I'm trying to convey, but preparing for GenCon is limiting my ability to thread-hunt ... if someone could look up discussions of scene-cutting and so forth, that would be handy.

Best,
Ron

I wasn't meaning "the Important Stuff in play occurs when every character is in the same spot" when I was speaking of a "Group Kicker". I was talking more along the lines of 3 players being involved in a single kicker. It might be more important to one of the three, but using Kickers that involve more than one character so, in that way, I can have 1-3 storylines going instead of 7.

A lot of the players I game with do take the position that if you're not involved with a scene then you're not "in play." A few react negatively to this. In a few instances, I've managed to surmount this by having players portray NPCs or henchmen and also by having the storylines dependent upon each other in some way so that the player A had a vested interest in what was going on with player B (thinking along the lines of Obi-Wan disabling the Tractor Beam while Han and Luke save Princess Leia).

I've come across some threads on the Forge, but I'm always open to more.

Scripty,

Doing kicker-based play with four players was about the biggest challenge that I want to experience.   Seven fully-blown story lines is probably a bit much.  I actually prefer having about two different story lines.  One way to handle it was suggested in Sorcerer & Sword, and I liked it a lot, although I haven't used it yet.  With this method, you have a single or a couple of main characters, and other characters acting as the supporting cast.  

If you think about a show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that's a good model.  There's a single star, but there are lots of supporting characters who get their own time in the spotlight, and even their own lesser story lines.  I have seen this done by other game masters with some success.

Thanks, Clay. This is exactly what I was talking about. I was looking more for anyone who had experiences running campaigns where the "spotlight" shifted every session or every other session. I think this would be a great way to handle the multiple storylines that Kickers can generate with large groups, but I wanted to see if anyone had any experience with this, especially as it relates to developing a character within the context of play. Using Kickers (to help players be more protagonistic and also play the types of challenges that they're interested in) and mixing in a few of the suggestions here already, such as those of Ben Morgan, might be the answer to my "dilemma" (if you want to call it that).

[Mike Holmes]

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.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Either they are ready to play characters, as the poster claims, or they're not. I am assuming that he's being accurate. I'm not proposing any games that require any real "background" at all, in fact. Because I feel that "background" is a red herring here. What Scripty seems to want is well-characterized play. And he thinks that a good background is how you get that. But it's not. Not at all.

Background can be indicative of a player who wants to explore a character deeply, but just forcing a player to come up with one, as we've seen does zero to promote characterization in play. OTOH, I can't imagine a game of InSpectres occuring without characterization. It's just part of what makes the game go.

What made the one-shots work for Scripty is not the nifty backgrounds he wrote. It's that the situation was set up such that all that there was to do was to explore the characters (am I right here Scripty?). It's situation that needs to be improved here, not exposition on characters. And that comes about by either narrow session planning, or by having a game that puts the PCs in situations which will promote character exploration.

The games I suggest will result in players doing exactly what Scripty wants. Once they see a system that promotes this sort of play they'll see that it's an option in general to play with these differing priorities. And then they can talk about it.

Mike

[Scripty]

What made the one-shots work for Scripty is not the nifty backgrounds he wrote. It's that the situation was set up such that all that there was to do was to explore the characters (am I right here Scripty?).

Mike

Perfectly, Mike. The backgrounds for the pregen characters were maybe about 50 words long (ala the Pool). Nothing major or in depth. You are also correct about my intentions. Perhaps, I should have thought them out more (and hence avoided thread-drift), but I was hoping for insight as to how to get the group behind more character-driven play (which requires, in my thinking, stronger characters). But you are correct, as well, that a detailed background does not a strong character make.

Thus far, the responses have all been well-informed and extremely helpful. For that, I extend my gratitude.

I have been trying to get a couple of the groups to do SOAP on a beer & pretzels night, but I think it'll require me supplying the beer. I, too, think the experience would be enjoyed by them, as would playing in the Pool.

(pun intended)

[John Kim]

OK, I'm not Scripty -- but my impression is that they don't like authoring background.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Either they are ready to play characters, as the poster claims, or they're not. I am assuming that he's being accurate. I'm not proposing any games that require any real "background" at all, in fact. Because I feel that "background" is a red herring here. What Scripty seems to want is well-characterized play.
...
The games I suggest will result in players doing exactly what Scripty wants. Once they see a system that promotes this sort of play they'll see that it's an option in general to play with these differing priorities. And then they can talk about it.

OK, so your five suggestions were: Soap, Dust Devils, The Riddle of Steel, freeform play, My Life with Master, and Nictotine Girls.  Of these, I'm only familiar with freeform, Soap, Nicotine Girls.  (Sorry if I miss the boat and these aren't representative.)  

Based on Scripty's description, the two things that I understand about these players are: (1) they like kewl powers, and (2) they don't like authoring motivating background for their PCs.  They apparently play fine using characters with pre-written motivations, but supposedly even after having been shown how motivations can drive play, they don't tend to create their own.  

Based on this, I don't think that either Soap or Nicotine Girls seem like clear choices.  First of all, neither have kewl powers for the PCs.  Second, both place central importance on the player authoring a goal for her PC.  I'm not saying that they won't work -- the players might try them and love it.  But they don't seem to play to what Scripty has said about these players.  At the very least, I think it would be a tough sell to get players interested.

I would think that the ideal would be a game which they are excited about from the start.  So, this would have kewl powers, and wouldn't require them to write up a motivating background -- but still stress well-characterized play.  OK, so there is a big gaping flaw here that I am extrapolating from very limited premises.

[Jason Lee]

On group kickers.  I have some very limitted experience with running kickers in our six person group (five players).  Doesn't seem like all that much of a chore to just connect the sequence of events two or more kickers start early on.  You know how sometimes in a story the main characters will start in completely places and through a series of events end up being embroiled in the same conflict? The example on the front of my mind is the beginning to Terminator 3.  There will be details left open in a kickers; you can fill in those details with bits from someone elses kicker.

[Lxndr]

Based on this, I don't think that either Soap or Nicotine Girls seem like clear choices.  First of all, neither have kewl powers for the PCs.  

I don't know much (well, anything) about Nicotine Girls, but there's nothing about SOAP that prohibits kewl powerz.  I'm working with Crayne on an "official" superhero supplement, but even without that, if you want kewl powerz, just say them.  In basic SOAP, your character's ability to lift tanks or hypnotize people might even get you plot tokens, if it's a Trait...

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

OK, so your five suggestions were: Soap, Dust Devils, The Riddle of Steel, freeform play, My Life with Master, and Nictotine Girls....

...the two things that I understand about these players are: (1) they like kewl powers, and (2) they don't like authoring motivating background for their PCs....

Based on this, I don't think that either Soap or Nicotine Girls seem like clear choices. First of all, neither have kewl powers for the PCs....I would think that the ideal would be a game which they are excited about from the start. So, this would have kewl powers, and wouldn't require them to write up a motivating background -- but still stress well-characterized play.

Mike knows this because he was a playtester: each player character in My Life with Master has a "More than Human," which describes a powerful and surreal ability beyond ordinary human capacity. And no hard-to-create goals...

Paul

[Scripty]

On group kickers.  I have some very limitted experience with running kickers in our six person group (five players).  Doesn't seem like all that much of a chore to just connect the sequence of events two or more kickers start early on.  You know how sometimes in a story the main characters will start in completely places and through a series of events end up being embroiled in the same conflict? The example on the front of my mind is the beginning to Terminator 3.  There will be details left open in a kickers; you can fill in those details with bits from someone elses kicker.

Great suggestion. I hadn't thought of that, but I think it could work. Thanks cruciel. Yet another post for my snip file.

[SeanFrank]

I'm new at this so please bare with me.

I love the idea of developing backgrounds through play, and as a GM you have the opption of giving characters backgrounds and connections as the game goes on. If you ask your players broad questions through out  the game about thier characters lifestlye you can start implementing those responses. For example, Does your character enjoy drinking and wenching? Later in the game you can have a child the character doesn't know about show up (tough for female characters but you figure it out.) Does your character enjoy sports? Have the "superbowl" occure in your game world. If you ask a few broad questions every game sestion you can slowly highlight the human side of these combat bricks.

Another option is giving them rewards that are laced with responsiblity and story. To take a page from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, give the players an extremly powerful artifact in the from of something they should care about, i.e. a sister. One of the cards in D&D's Deck of Many Things gives the characters a Keep. This is an amazing responsiblity if played correctly.

My final point is a question of how much control of the game world do you give to your players? Can they narrate  sceans? Are they allowed to create NPCs? Maybe this isn't their thing, but if you give more control of the enviroment to you players you might get the result of more input from a player who has a greater stake in the game.

I know grammer and spelling errors are ofensive so I'd like to apologize for them.

SeanFrank

[Scripty]

My final point is a question of how much control of the game world do you give to your players? Can they narrate  sceans? Are they allowed to create NPCs? Maybe this isn't their thing, but if you give more control of the enviroment to you players you might get the result of more input from a player who has a greater stake in the game.

I know grammer and spelling errors are ofensive so I'd like to apologize for them.

SeanFrank

All of the above. Players in my games are free to create ad nauseam (irregardless of the system we use) as long as what they come up with is "fun" (as in it doesn't seriously hamper the rest of the group) or within reason (and that's pretty broad considering the content of most rpgs).

If the creation is particularly unlikely, I might charge a Hero Point or Drama Point. If the creation is particularly unsettling or powerful, I might tack on a twist or complication.

The players all know this, at least I've told it to them several times. But they rarely take advantage of it. Perhaps it's my approach. I could be overloading them. But situations have occured where a player has rolled a die and said "I got a Spot of 17" and I've replied "Tell me what you see." Blank.

"What is it that you're looking for?"

Blank.

Blank.

Me trying to move things along: "You see some shadows up ahead..."

"Cool. I move ahead."

After reading more about "No Myth", especially on the "No Myth & D&D" thread (sorry, I don't have time to link), I think I am approaching this aspect of protagonistic play incorrectly. A good example given on that thread (IIRC) involves a thief trying to navigate the city sewers. The DM asks if the character had ever been there before and then the player and DM create a brief backstory off of what normally would be a lame skill roll.

I like that approach and wish I had seen (and processed) it earlier. So, the short answer is that the players have full power to create items, places, NPCs, etc. I once even had one player create an entire race on the spot, to which an astonished player replied "You can do that?!" Then again the brief monologue of "Yes, we all make this game together..."

I don't think, for some reason, I'm articulating it well in play, however. I think there may be a disjunct between the way I describe what players can do and how it translates in actual play. Hence, I think the approach on the "No Myth" thread is superior to my own "roll degrees of success, not pass/fail" method.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't find spelling or grammatical errors offensive. A good idea is a good idea, at least to me.