So Tara says to me, "I don't like Jeremiah's romantic interests."

"Oh?"

"Luir and Luccia aren't quite right."

"I suppose.  You know who's perfect?  Genevieve.  You could kill Caspian and then she'd fall into his arms."

"That would be sad and she's like 10 years younger than him."

"So?"

"So, that's creepy."

"Remind me not to talk to freshman girls anymore."

"You could make a new character!  She needs to be adventurous, and sweet, and hot, and..."

"Ummm...  I already have a shit-ton of characters and like 4 in the queue.  I just got the zombie samurai.  He's barely out of the wrapper.  Make Eric do it."

"Waaaaah.  Come on.  I know you'll do it right."

"I'll think about it."

****

I do think about it, because unfortunately she's got me.  I love making characters.  Enough that the rest of the group mocks me for having "800" characters.  In truth I have about 20, or maybe 30, but I'm only playing 6 right now, and that's not even double what some people have so I don't see what they are complaining about. ;)

So I say to her, "Bounty hunter!"

And she says, "Yay!"

I quickly say, "Maybe."

*****

Despite how much I adore making characters I never really define them outside of play.  No character backgrounds, timelines, or any of that jazz.  I just get a general idea, a general appearance, toss them in the mix, and see who they turn out to be.  Some of the characters in our campaign have their own blogs, which is probably worth its own topic.  I decided, using the same medium, to engage in a bit of an exercise.  I would make a blog and fill it with little stories designed to be character concepts.  So far, the bounty hunter has gotten all of the attention.  I still haven't decided if I'll play her, but Tara's excited enough about the idea that I'm risking a lashing if I don't.

Here is my little experiment:  Intercapedo.  In case you feel like getting some context for the rambling that is to come.  (Ignore the Elliot entry - he's an active character.)

My bounty hunter is a genre archetype.  Pure cliche.  If you've ever read a detective novel with a female protagonist, like the Stephanie Plum or Anita Blake books, you'll recognize her.  There is nothing, nada, zippo, original in the character.  The fact that she is an archetype does a lot of work for me. Just based on being familiar with the genre I know that:

• She is drawn to, but doesn't really like, men who are trouble for her.
• She is pretty enough that she invokes catcalls and can use her appearance to manipulate, but not so pretty that she isn't self-conscious about her appearance.  She has to have at least one feature to complain about, which helps female readers identify with her.  I'm sure it helps men a bit, but let's face it, this archetype is geared towards women.  If it wasn't the authors wouldn't feel the need to describe what shoes she puts on before leaving the house.
• She'll be fit, but not strong or large.
• She works in a boys club of some kind.  She gets talked down to a lot in her work and not taken seriously.  This just makes her ornery.
• She has some sort of "girly" hobby - like collecting stuffed penguins.
• Conflicts will involve her getting in over her head because she'll puff herself up and take on a challenge beyond her.  Often it'll be beyond her physically, such as catching a very large man.  She'll escape the conflict by luck, possibly running, and probably lying through her teeth.  This will only dig her deeper into trouble.
• And much more...

All of these things, not just the one I pointed out, are things that a female reader especially can identify with.  I think these strong mechanism of identification are why this archetype is so popular.  An incredible amount of information is packed into genre.  Character personalities, dialogue flow, conflicts, and resolutions.  All this information can be used simply by using the genre.  You'll be up and running with a fleshed out character instantly just by using an archetype. 

Genre is built on a structure of cliches.  Cliches are cliche because we like them enough to use them over and over and over again.  Genre is so appealing because it's based on well liked qualities.  Then there is the problem with cliche.  If this character of mine follows her genre perfectly she'll be trite.  Boring.  I'll already know all that will or can happen to her.  That makes the theme already expressed.  I can't do it in play.  I'll be themeless.  Rather, I won't enjoy the theme I end up with.  This is where the criticism of genre fiction comes in.  Too much use of cliche.  Which doesn't mean there isn't good genre fiction.  It just needs something unexpected. 

Do you have to break away from using an archetype to have an engaging theme?  I don't think so, but you would then need a unique situation.  Seems to me like you can still end up with an engaging theme if one side of the collision of character and situation is cliche.  (Important note:  if something is not cliche to you specifically then it does not hinder your engagement in theme.)

*****

For the jargon inclined, this is a semi-split from:  Exploration does not equal Bricolage.  It seems as though bricolage is the process by which genre is created from cliche, just as myth is created from wildlife, weather and culture.  The use of genre in role-playing is also bricolage, because situation, character and setting are built from genre tropes.

Mr. Lee,

I just wanted to say how awesome you were in "Chasing Amy" and I think it's a crime you were passed up for an Academy Award.

Yours truly,

Jared

Thank you.  Though I feel my best work was in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story.

Heya,

Jason wrote: Genre is built on a structure of cliches.  Cliches are cliche because we like them enough to use them over and over and over again.  Genre is so appealing because it's based on well liked qualities.  Then there is the problem with cliche.  If this character of mine follows her genre perfectly she'll be trite.  Boring.  I'll already know all that will or can happen to her.  That makes the theme already expressed.  I can't do it in play.  I'll be themeless.  Rather, I won't enjoy the theme I end up with.  This is where the criticism of genre fiction comes in.  Too much use of cliche.  Which doesn't mean there isn't good genre fiction.  It just needs something unexpected.

Callan wrote: Is this sorta why you have about thirty characters? That you feel their theme is already expressed, so you move on in making another one?

I'm probably off topic here, but shouldn't her cliche values be tested. Like some particular guy at work talks down to her...and she likes this, somehow? Why does she like it, what's different about this guy to her?

The cliche's help set up a structure that the character can then go against, to show something about herself. If she were just a blank, she wouldn't show anything by resisting or accepting something.

I smell Ron.

Therefore: Could you state the specifics of this character and their involvement in actual play and any questions or topics you want to bring up?

May the wind be always at your back,
-Empyrealmortal

Eric wrote: Therefore: Could you state the specifics of this character and their involvement in actual play and any questions or topics you want to bring up?

Jason wrote: Do you have to break away from using an archetype to have an engaging theme?

Joshua wrote: If you want to discuss, analyze, and address that archetype (what does it mean to be a hard-nosed reporter?), then you can pretty much stick within it.  I don't think you really know everything about that archetypal character from the get-go.  You may know what she does, but you may not know why.  Similarily, you know ten things about what she does, but you don't know how those ten things interrelate.  That said, once you start exploring those questions, you are developing more depth than the archetype really holds, and you're creating an individual character based off of that archetype.

Did you see the movie Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?  That's a great example of expert use of archetypes -- that movie simply throws characters onto the screen and starts things happening.  Characters have no backstory, at no point do we get any explanation for anything, and yet there is never anything that we don't understand.  The first scene with the female lead, for instance, has her sitting at a desk in a tan coat and fedroa typing on a typewriter with newspapers in the background.  We know immediately that she's a hard boiled reporter that will do anything to get her story.  Bang.  And then robots attack (actually, I think the robots attack first, but whatever).

Point is, the movie is incredibly engaging.  I loved it.  It's just that the point of engagement isn't in the characters, it's the development of the setting and plot, the mystery of what is happening, the oodles and oodles of color, and so on.  I don't see why you can't create a similar experience in gaming.  It won't be deeply moving character-driven drama, but that doesn't mean it's not engaging.  It's just not engaging in that particular mode.

Jason wrote:
Do you have to break away from using an archetype to have an engaging theme?  I don't think so, but you would then need a unique situation.  Seems to me like you can still end up with an engaging theme if one side of the collision of character and situation is cliche.  (Important note:  if something is not cliche to you specifically then it does not hinder your engagement in theme.)

Joshua and Graham,

I think you guys are right.  I think I've been over reaching... I even think I contradicted myself in the process, because if successful archetypes have strong character identification methods then they should be fairly engaging just for that reason.  I don't have anything to add at the moment.  I just wanted to acknowledge.

(I haven't seen the Sky Captain movie, but I think I will now.)