Here's my problem:

I'm staring up my first game since discovering the Forge, and I'd like to test drive some Narrativist techniques, keeping in mind Ron's advice to "Give the players what they want."

I've solicited character concepts from the players, and one is problematic. She wants her character to be extraordinarily witty, never at a loss for words. A number of characters she has made in other games also express this desire, so I'm sure it's very important to the player.

My problem is that she is not extremely witty. She'll have one or two zingers during a session, but often IS at loss for words.

What might I do to keep this player feeling witty without her being witty? I had thought about using a lot of dice rolls for witty repartee ... or having NPCs react as if the character has said something witty even though the player has not. Anyone have any ideas?

Hi there,

Taglines!!

In the game The Dying Earth, characters begin play with three funny sentences, often very oblique. "No, thank you, red is not my lucky color." Working these into play generates the improvement mechanic, and you get more if your use of the phrase is exceptionally well-timed and well-placed.

I suggest letting the player write a set of taglines, or better, writing up a bunch for her and letting her choose, to start (and to provide a concept-model for her to work from later, to write her own). Then provide any kind of reward system you want, like the improvement-one or anything else (say, a bonus to the next roll). You could limit this tactic to this one particular player or make it available to everyone, as you see fit.

Best,
Ron

The problem that you've brought up is one of the most ancient and challenging of RPG puzzles. How to handle players who want their characters to have better social skills than themselves? Similar arguments revolve around Intelligence and problem solving (the Deduction roll dillemma).

There's a lot of theories on this. One somewhat extreme school states that such abilities should not be allowed at all, that a character should only be as witty as the player is capable of making him or her. But that leaves a lot of players with limited options. The question is one of satisfaction for the one player against that of the group.

One solution that I saw which was somewhat like Ron's is to allow such players to declare a break at any time during the game to give them time to think about their response, possibly getting help from the other players. Or allowing players to pass notes with suggestions during play. If you can involve the other players in a way in which they might enjoy it you might be able to satisfy everyone. But it's certainly no easy task.

Mike

A variation on Ron's suggestion comes from White Wolf's Adventure! and works in the reverse direction. Instead of the player making up taglines and finding ways to work them in the player is allowed to contrive the whole conversation in advance. Basically, the player writes a series of straight lines and comebacks between sessions. Then, at the start of play the player gives only the straight lines to the GM. It's then the GM's job to work those straight lines into play, which of course the player has already prepared comebacks for.

I don't know if this is better or worse than what Ron suggested. I simply offer it to show that the responsibility for working in moments of wit can go both ways.

Jesse

Mike Holmes wrote:
One solution that I saw which was somewhat like Ron's is to allow such players to declare a break at any time during the game to give them time to think about their response, possibly getting help from the other players. Or allowing players to pass notes with suggestions during play.

Honestly, I just go with the school of thought that says, "The dice are there to roll, so roll 'em."
Thus, Mr. Witty whose-player-has-never-had-a-clever-moment-in-their-life can BE Mr. Witty with the simple success of a die roll.

What one does after that: whether the DM comes up with some appropriately witty remark, or the other players, and it is assumed to be said by the witty character; or the whole thing is abstracted with a description (a technique I often use..."The captain of the guard gives you the directions to the warrens"...instead of playing it out word by word) is up to the group as a whole.

Why do it this way? With rolls instead of roles.
Well, look at it like this: I don't know how to perform major surgery or create fireballs, either; nor do I know which fork is the salad fork. My character does, though, and while I might make a fool of myself by picking the wrong fork, my character won't.

Hearken ye back to those words in the red box D&D set: The player is not the character.

Hence, I am not my character.

Emily Care wrote:
Encourage the group as a whole to feel free to insert witty words into the character's mouth. Make it a contest for the whole group to see just how witty this character can get. If you need to give incentives (what system is it again?) dole out experience points or some such to the person who makes that character look the best. 5 or 6 heads are better than one.

I agree very strongly with Raven, Emily, and Xiombarg - utilizing the group as allies is very effective.

It's not a mystery why, either. The actual person, in these cases, would personally like to be witty, and to be socially acknowledged as such. Hence the commitment of others to his or her wittiness, up to and including contributing to it, is exactly what the person is looking for.

As long as the player of the character gets final authority in what the character ends up saying or doing, so "tele-play" from other players doesn't decrease that player's central role of the moment ("I'm so witty"), then all is well.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
...The actual person, in these cases, would personally like to be witty, and to be socially acknowledged as such. Hence the commitment of others to his or her wittiness, up to and including contributing to it, is exactly what the person is looking for.

As long as the player of the character gets final authority in what the character ends up saying or doing, so "tele-play" from other players doesn't decrease that player's central role of the moment ("I'm so witty"), then all is well.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Right, but herin lies the potential problem with all of these suggestions of ours. How am I going to feel witty if my lines are being fed to me? Maybe I can deliver them well, but obviously I didn't come up with them (this is why I suggested the surepetitious note passing method; I may be able to generate a temporary illusion of wittiness). So that urge is probably impossible to satisfy precisely. Instead the urge to create a good performance or something like that is what is most likely to be satisfied by group help.

xiombarg wrote:
Of course you'll want to talk to the player before doing it formally. In my case the situation evolved spontanously so there was no issue of me not liking what was going on.

Mike,

With respect, I think your points apply very nicely to you, but that you don't fit the profile of the person that swlives is describing. In my experience, and I stand corrected if necessary, the key remains the esteem gained by the player from the other players/GM. If he or he is "getting credit" for the wittiness, regardless of who provided it, and if the character is "getting credit" for the wittiness in a way that indicates the other players like having that character in play, then the goal is being achieved.

Your example illustrates two points which remove your position from being a valid example of such play or our suggested solutions. (1) You state that you didn't want or need help in playing your character to be "slick and cool." The player swlives is describing is unhappy with her play - she is frustrated and may accept help. (2) You refer to having your character "directed" by other players, which is precisely what we are saying, "Do not do." In this, everyone in this thread is in agreement, your example included.

Best,
Ron