No. I'm not talking about HeroClix.

And I'm fairly new to these boards, only been here a few days.

But I'm struck by the wonderful deconstruction and re-construction of gaming theory. Yet, much has been made of Player actions (from what I can glean from GNS theory)... however, not much examination has been made of the Player's conduit to the game world... the Player Character. Perhaps this has been stated ad naseum and i'm the new guy who thinks he has found a shiny new toy. If so, forgive me for the rehash.

Now, I'm a professional character creator. I do it every single day of my working life. "huh?" You might ask. Or more likely, "wtf". But I'm an illustrator and I create characters,sometimes 5 to 20 of them at a time on some canvas or paper. Each character I draw gets invested with some personality, I hope. And while this is not Stats and equipment lists (although the amount of research I have to do on equipment is considerable) ala RPGs... it is still character creation in my mind.

I'm also a Role Player since 1978. I've come up with hundreds of Player Characters. I can come up with a character at the drop of a hat. It is easy for me. Illustration has honed certain decision making processes which RPGaming as help informed over 2 decades.

Yet! Only a few PCs have ever "clicked" with me as a player. Such a technical term. <g>. And here is where we get to the meat of my silly proposal. I have created characters that others have clicked with. I've even done drawings that have inspired characters. But only a few characters have "clicked" with myself.

Clicked, to me, means become their own voices, personalities and I LIKE playing them.... I look forward to hearing those stories, voices, decisions. I like stepping into that person and ceasing to be wholly ME.

I think the odds against a Character that Clicks are pretty high... and it is special when it does. Below are some of the hurdles that might get int he way.

1. You need a concept that you wanna play, session 1. Whether a combo of cool powers, interesting background, emotative stance to the world...what have you. If you hate halflings as tired, bored, retread concept... either playing a hobbit is going to be a great challenge... or you are not going to do it at all.

2. You need opportunity. An Exhalted character cannot be ported over to Witchcraft game. One can "modifiy" an Exhalted charcter...but then it isn't an Exhalted character anymore. Your character needs to exist in a specific world. Might even say specific GM's world. Who hasn't created characters that never saw 1 minute of gaming table time?

3. Survivabilty. A PC needs to survive in order to get #4.

4. Time. Often, one needs to grow into a PC. Not always. But often. Nuances of the character that make them delicious to play are revealed by choices over time. Myself? I've discarded characters after a time, because they were not clicking at this point.

5. Acceptable Variation. I think many of us have predilections towards CharGen. I like to play Jack of all Trades, multi-skilled, master of none. And of course, the I wanna play a Ninja, no matter the genre, is the stuff of much laughter. So the new PC has to be an interesting twist or variant (or it isn't a new PC) to both the Player AND the table. I have seen someone play the same character with different name and the rest of the players go "c'mon!" When I find myself creating a character that falls into already established patterns, I get annoyed with myself and bored with the character. I wanna go somewhere new. Yet if I go TOO far from what I like about characters (I have a really hard time playing "evil" PCs)...there is no identification.

6. Insertion. The PC has to matter in the GM's story. If this ain't happening... the PC is going no where. As a GM, I have a devil of a time writing scenes for certain PCs and no problem with others. This is certainly due to Players... but it also is due to some PCs have MORE story hooks to want to write to.

7. A really cool character portrait. Okay, okay... I'm kidding. just trying to drum up business... you can't blame a guy for trying. Actually, I just didn't know how I was going to finish this silly post, so I thought I would opt for a dumb joke.

... like i said, maybe this has all been said better, done smarter... but I thought I would take a stab...

Just to paraphrase for clarity, is the topic "What makes a character really worth playing?"

I think it's an interesting topic. But I think that the solution is actually the character's context. That is, most of the hurdles are easily overcome if you put the character into the appropriate situation. If the character is just sitting there doing nothing, then how can you relate?

Put another way, when you do portraits, what are the characters doing? Do you find that this has an effect on which ones "Clik?"

Mike

Storn wrote: And I'm fairly new to these boards, only been here a few days.

Storn wrote: Yet! Only a few PCs have ever "clicked" with me as a player. Such a technical term. <g>. And here is where we get to the meat of my silly proposal. I have created characters that others have clicked with. I've even done drawings that have inspired characters. But only a few characters have "clicked" with myself.

Clicked, to me, means become their own voices, personalities and I LIKE playing them.... I look forward to hearing those stories, voices, decisions. I like stepping into that person and ceasing to be wholly ME.

Interestingly, I've had more characters click immediately upon conception, and then fall totally flat in play, than I've had characters click immediately upon conception and actually turn out well in play.

Some of the characters who clicked absolutely best for me were pregens that were designed to fit into the situation and all I had to do was interpret and flesh them out.

My initial thought is that Mike is on to something with context.
(of course, he won't be surprised to hear that given how much I rant on about situation)

[Bahhh, hit submit too soon, to continue]

I also would find time and survivability among the lesser important factors on the list. One of the most immediately "on" characters I've played was in the now infamous TROS demo at Origins a couple years back. 1 session, and my character died (willingly on my part) at the end. It was also a pregen character. Yet the minute I picked up the sheet, I knew exactly who that guy was and what was important to him.

John is right about #6 being a can of worms. I could rant on quite the tirade about collaboration between GMs and Players in creating Situation (which to me is the jumping up and down screaming answer to your insertion problems) and...come to think of it...I have.

So I won't derail this thread here, except to say I think #6, which I'd rename Buy-In (to avoid the GM-centric implications of "insertion") is absolutely essential, and that the best way to get that consistantly is for all the players at the table (this includes the GM, as a player) to create characters together as a group effort simultaneously with the situation play is to be based on. With traditional "everyone show up with a character" play...I agree...Insertion becomes very hit or miss.

Its something I think is too essential to leave up to such hit or miss vaguaries.

I would agree with Ralph that Time is not absolutely required. I've had similar situations with one-shot characters, pre-gens... what have you... that immediately struck me as real and inspired my gaming "through them." i.e. clicked.

What I wonder about being added to the list might be.

7. Reinforcement

By this I mean, the game itself, the GM, the other players... need to respond in a positive, reinforcing manner to HOW the character is played. For example, if a player really thinks they "know" the character, and in play, they say or do something in character... one of two things can happen. One the table nods, smiles, positively responds... events/conversations/ideas flower from that action/statement... and the player is reinforced in his belief that he's "got it!" with the character. His conduit into the game is validated.

or... two... the players ignore the statement, or shake their heads... the GM says, "Huh?"... and things get quiet and uncomfortable. It's like a slap in the face to the player, and even though, up until that second they were "clicking" with the character... that slap disconnects them.

I've had the second happen after years of playing a character, where the GM had events happen that just marginalized a character and removed his primary motivation... and I suddenly no longer "clicked" with the character. I had great memories, but it was over, done... and left a bad taste in my mouth.

Now, character play reinforcement might also actually touch on GNS theory, in that I would ask, "Can a character click, if they creative agenda is not being fulfilled?" I'd think not... but I don't know. Since the character is the "conduit" to the game... and the creative agenda is "why we play the game"... then the character could be confused with "why we play the game"... kind of like confusing the medium with art itself (or maybe that is just a lousy analogy.)

Anyway... I really do think that positive reinforcement of character play is essential for "the click" to happen, and be maintained.

Are we talking "clicked during character creation" or "clicked during play"?

During creation, a character clicks for me when I find an issue to organize it around - in GNS terms, when I start to see Premises the character might address in play.

During play, a character clicks for me when I have a chance to face and choose a response to a premise question that both interests me - and involves some unique quality of the character.

When playing a simulationist game, I only get the "click" when I have a rare chance for a narrativist moment. I just can't seem to get a bang out of sim for sim sake.

When playing gamist, the click happens when I discover a unique form of effectiveness, or face a challenge and solve it with tools of the character that none other could have.

In short, I think "click" happens when your character empowers you to pursue a creative agenda in a way that interests you.

Alan wrote: In short, I think "click" happens when your character empowers you to pursue a creative agenda in a way that interests you.

Mike Holmes wrote: Just to paraphrase for clarity, is the topic "What makes a character really worth playing?"

I think it's an interesting topic. But I think that the solution is actually the character's context. That is, most of the hurdles are easily overcome if you put the character into the appropriate situation. If the character is just sitting there doing nothing, then how can you relate?

Put another way, when you do portraits, what are the characters doing? Do you find that this has an effect on which ones "Clik?"

Mike

Since no one else has said it yet: Welcome to The Forge, Storn!

Interestingly, I've had more characters click immediately upon conception, and then fall totally flat in play, than I've had characters click immediately upon conception and actually turn out well in play.

Storn wrote: Also, folks, I did not say any of my elements on my list were required... but tendencies. Absolutely, Survival is not necessary to a Great Character that Clicks... but it certainly doesn't HURT!

I've also found several one-shot characters that just clicked for me, particularly pre-gens. I'm not sure what it is about certain characters. Most recently, the character that has clicked for me was an Amber character who was raised by a Native American-like people and was a village shaman. The character was very alive for me and I understood his action/emotions/motivations. Part of it may be that his own level of spirituality gave him something that I could really connect to. Part of it may have been that I built someone who was not ever meant to be a genre staple or to fit some niche in the group but someone who was just built to be a real personality. He was not some tough guy action hero and mysterious mystic. He was really just a guy.

Maybe it takes that special element from yourself being in the character for it to click...that element that you and your character share and therefore allows the you to feel that the character is real and invest in him or her some connection.

Personally I think the reason that characters click is because there is a situation for them to click with. A character without a situation is just a resume...and resumes are boring.

The reason why many experience a fairly high proportion of clicking with pre gens, is because most pre gens are designed with a specific situation in mind.

The reason why many experience a fairly high proportion of characters that seem amazing during creation and fall flat in play is because during creation we're envisioning all sorts of great situations for our character that really gets us excited to play. Then in actual play...the traditional way of establishing a campaign means there is no interesting situation for us to latch on to, and the character rapidly deflates.

The reason why many spend a great deal of time writing up elaborate character back grounds for their characters is because they've visualized all of these great situations they'd love to play their characters in, but they know from experience that traditional play won't deliver those situations, so they write them up as part of their character's background to get what ever kick they can out of the character.

IMO, the traditional campaign structure is designed to pretty much edit out any and every trace of situation. The design presumption of most games is that play should be able to continue forever, that the game should support "any character", and "any sort of campaign". Think of all of the games that advertise open character creation so you can be "any character" as one of its selling points...

Thing is, not all characters are suitable for all situations. Most games address this with all of one or two paragraphs instructing players to consult with their GM on character concept. What is perhaps the single most important factor in successful game play, reduced to a mere paragraph. What a cop out.

The more clear, concise, and compelling your starting situation, the more likely you as a player are to "click" with your character, the more likely you as a player are to buy into the game and be committed to the experience of play.

However, the more clear, concise, and compelling the starting situation, the narrower the range of characters that are appropriate to that situation.

Unfortuneatly this runs completely contrary to the conventional wisdom of games which seek to brag about "be any character you can possibly imagine", and "we have over 370 character classes and 53 playable races", or "never be restricted by character classes again, use our system to build any character you want".

See, in order for "be any character you want" to work, you have to down play situation. Because if you design a game with a clear, concise, and compelling situation, the idea of "being any character you want" doesn't work. So these games go to great efforts to edit out any hint or trace of situation. They replace situation with a smattering of "plot hooks" but aside from that leave the game "wide open".

Thing is "wide open" isn't really a good thing. "wide open" means that the situation is not clear, not concise, and not compelling. "wide open" means that there is nothing there to latch your character onto and so "clicking" with the character is pretty hit or miss.

Is it any wonder why so many campaigns fizzle?

Storn wrote: Okay, I guess I didn't make this clear. I can make a very worthwhile character to be played. It has happened several times, where the character didn't click with me... but when on to Click with someone else. More times that simply coincidence. The character was worthy, you see... but still didn't Click with me.