Down in the Sorcerer Forum Ron wrote...

Many role-players, I think, have not learned to read well (or view movies well) - they can see that a protagonist thinks X, Y, and Z when it's verbalized in italic prose or delivered in voice-over; they can see that an antagonist is "bad" when he performs a tag-scene or mouths a tag-line that establishes him as such (beating up a henchmen, or saying, "... the price is worth the knowledge it will bring," respectively). They do not do so well when the information is being delivered strictly through non-expository dialogue and through action. Ask anyone what the story of Deliverance is - most of the time, all you'll get is a sniggering account of the rape scene.

Such a person is going to have a lot of trouble with protagonism - simultaneously desiring it greatly and fearing it greatly. He or she will derive great pleasure from fantasizing, out of play, about what a cool character they have, but will shy away from any Kicker-style play or protagonist-style decision-making.

I think you're spot on. Its the same reason why most fans would pick Strider as being a far cooler character to play than one of the hobbits (cept me, I personally thought Strider was a huge whiny baby...Boramir...now he was cool).

Haveing been doing a lot of reading into the nature of the western and its enduring popularity, I'll add the following comment. Part of what makes westerns so popular is that the features which you recognize as being maximum cool but typically relegated to secondary characters are often the featured character in the western. The mysterious stranger, the reticence, the lone wolf image, the sense of aloofness, of being personally above whatever petty squabble he's being drawn into.

I don't know that I have a real answer to your question, but my best suggestion would be to look to the western for inspiration. If the western's bread and butter is taking those types of figures and making protagonists of them, you might find something useful in exploring how they manage to do that.

(EDIT: CHEAP PLUG!!! -- If you're gonna check out Westerns as Valamir suggested, check out my game Dust Devils!)

Yes, I have absolutely encountered this! It's actually something I was just thinking about, though certainly not worded in this way. Basically, I was trying to figure out how to get my players to create compelling characters, rather than the usual suspects of ass-beaters and drow ranger clones ... well, not actually, but you get the idea.

I think the problem is analagous to the issue of color and setting -- something I had such a hard time seeing past when I first visited the Forge, and now value as the one insight I can best apply to improve my gaming.

What I mean is, I think many players & GMs get all glassy eyed when presented with some far-out, kewl setting or character concept. Obviously, the problem is that there's no meat on the character's bones, no substance (same could be said of games w/ great settings and poorly done systems).

Now, since my group is fairly mature, we've approached some kind of intermediate stage in which they've created a fine character concept, even one with some meat on his bones, but that's it. They don't intend to move that character in any meaningful direction.

I had a near-revelatory discussion with one of my fellow players about his character the other day. The character had died, MUCH to his dismay, so we talked about it. One question I posed to him was, why should I let him go back. (Or, as the simulationist in me said, "Why should the gods let him return?"). He suggested this and that, when I pointed out that some MAJOR change must be required in this death -- that death was a metaphor for transformation.

Now, his character is a very able elf mage, who has acted throughout the campaign as a snotty, noble ass, even to his fellow party members who have saved him on more than one occasion. I pointed out that in order to justify an arcane resurrection, he'd need to role-play toward rectifying that relationship with his companions. He agreed that doing so would make the character much more interesting and challenging (read: fun) to play.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is this: Player characer (i.e. protagonists) need to be dynamic. They need to experience significant change / transformation. However, many players approach characters as monolithic caricacatures -- personalities they might competently role-play (by which I mean character-acting), but not personalities they see as capable of revision and transformation in play.

Hey,

The trouble with using the western model is that a few minutes into the film, the "mysterious detached loner" has become re-attached. Clint's famous Man With No Name is a perfect example. He doesn't stay aloof or uncommitted. He gets in there, tries to help people out, gets his ass kicked for him, and finally does all manner of stuff, placing himself at risk "for no reason," to clinch his attachment. Mad Max in The Road Warrior presents exactly the same picture. Yes, both characters do not stay with the community they are helping, but they go to the wall for its benefit - their commitment, in a very real way, constitutes the meat of the story.

In other words, the western offers very little hope for the role-player who would like his fellow role-players to do "protagonist" stuff. Its answer is, "Be a protagonist even if the opening shot of the film suggests otherwise."

The good news is that people can't talk about this stuff very easily, and so dialogue like Jesse's question to his players may not be revealing as much resistance as it seems.

For instance, the "gazing at the sunset" player may well just be thinking in terms of the Establishing Shot, in full (but unverbalized knowledge) that when the Crunch comes, she'll swing into highly-individualized action without fail. Given only a vague context for the question ("What do you see your character doing?"), she withholds information about what the character would do if she cared, and sticks with the Establishing Shot. I've noticed this trend (again, entirely unverbalized and unself-conscious) among many players.

Best,
Ron

Matt Snyder wrote:
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is this: Player characer (i.e. protagonists) need to be dynamic. They need to experience significant change / transformation. However, many players approach characters as monolithic caricacatures -- personalities they might competently role-play (by which I mean character-acting), but not personalities they see as capable of revision and transformation in play.

Ron Edwards wrote: For instance, the "gazing at the sunset" player may well just be thinking in terms of the Establishing Shot, in full (but unverbalized knowledge) that when the Crunch comes, she'll swing into highly-individualized action without fail. Given only a vague context for the question ("What do you see your character doing?"), she withholds information about what the character would do if she cared, and sticks with the Establishing Shot. I've noticed this trend (again, entirely unverbalized and unself-conscious) among many players.

Hi Jesse,

I just want to add that it's not just your players. And it's not just RPGers.

In my screenwriting program I know my teachers spend an awlful lot of time trying to get people to stop writing ten pages of their protagonist alone. Why? I don't know. Many people attracted to writing and games are introverts, and they imaging their characters doing introverted things? I don't know.

(This, by the way, works great for the introverted medium of the novel -- you create it alone, you consume it alone, and it's great for hanging out in the middle of a character's head while action happens somewhere out there.)

RPGs are more like dramatic narrative (film and theater) where character is revealed through action and intereaction with other people.

What makes loners deal with other people? Well, there's need. A Kicker provides a need.

There's attachment to other characters. (I know this flies in the face of their "I'm above it all" (or what you're assuming to be their "I'm above it all.") but if you make it a requirement of play that they care about somebody you're already begun a habit.) Sorcerer builds this in automatically with Demons, of course.

And finally -- what can I say? Nar and Sim. If you're players are really happy sitting there and you're thinking, "Why aren't they proactively doing something....?" At some point it might be a matter that the group's taste and ambition might be straining.

I would sugguest however, picking up off Ron's comments about Westerns, that give character a crisis and they tend to swing into action. The beauty of a Kicker is that the player gives the GM solid clues about what kind of actions and crisis they want to play, so they probably won't bounce it out of hand.

Take care,
Christopher

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey,
For instance, the "gazing at the sunset" player may well just be thinking in terms of the Establishing Shot, in full (but unverbalized knowledge) that when the Crunch comes, she'll swing into highly-individualized action without fail. Given only a vague context for the question ("What do you see your character doing?"), she withholds information about what the character would do if she cared, and sticks with the Establishing Shot. I've noticed this trend (again, entirely unverbalized and unself-conscious) among many players.

Hey,

Well, that's what the Sorcerer Kicker is for, essentially. It's designed to deliver both information and content into the game that transforms the character from a noun into a verb, and it puts the direct responsibility for this transformation into the hands of the player.

On occasion, in practice, people do try to wriggle out of this responsibility ("Um, I get a mysterious letter in a language I can't read"), but more often, or perhaps with a little nudging, people get inspired.

I hope folks won't mind the name-dropping that's about to follow ...

I think it's significant that the designers and frequent GMs of two violent, action-packed, very atmospheric RPGs both responded identically to the Kicker when they read it in Sorcerer.

"I love that!"
"Damn, I wish we had that in our game!"
"I'm going to use these from now on!"
- Jake Norwood (The Riddle of Steel) and Dav Harnish (Obsidian)

Best,
Ron

Damn twitch finger. I had a nice little post in reply, when I managed to hit quit accidentally, rather than close another window.

I was going to say something like:

Ron nailed it: Make the player care. Then you can sit back and watch them move.

Now, finding out how to do that is the big question. In the case of your Sunset-gazer, I can imagine she idealizes a beautiful world and her place in it. Harmony. That's what Werewolf's all about, no? So, figure out what that "place" is and twist it. Maybe the Wyrm wreaks havoc on her literal or figurative haven. Maybe another 'wolf tribe/clan/whatever-it's-called actually does the havoc-wreaking, and more role-playing opportunities present themselves. Say, for example, that these other 'wolves destroy her home or Caern or some such because they saw it as part of a greater good (not sure that jives w/ "proper" Werewolf, but bear w/ me). So, now you have conflict between our idyllic gazer and the crusading 'wolves.

Not sure that's as concrete as it should be to help, but I hope you catch my drift. Be sneaky if you have to, or be damned blunt about it, but figure out what the hell it is your player cares about, then put the squeeze on it, pronto (i.e, create some conflict about which they give a damn!).

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey,

The trouble with using the western model is that a few minutes into the film, the "mysterious detached loner" has become re-attached. Clint's famous Man With No Name is a perfect example. He doesn't stay aloof or uncommitted. He gets in there, tries to help people out, gets his ass kicked for him, and finally does all manner of stuff, placing himself at risk "for no reason," to clinch his attachment. Mad Max in The Road Warrior presents exactly the same picture. Yes, both characters do not stay with the community they are helping, but they go to the wall for its benefit - their commitment, in a very real way, constitutes the meat of the story.

Hmmm... Well, we seem to have the 'loner' problem covered and, yes, Kickers are sheer genious and I may have made the mistake with my Werewolf game in that I applied the Kicker concept at the group level, rather than the character level, however, this doesn't address the initial issue.

The initial issue I brought up considers characters that *DO* care about something but that something isn't befiting a protagonist, if that makes any sense. Like the Burke character from Aliens.

There's something here I'm trying to get at that obviously isn't being clearly articulated. Any insights?

Jesse

jburneko wrote: There's something here I'm trying to get at that obviously isn't being clearly articulated. Any insights?

Hi Jesse,

Maybe you aren't being clear -- because my brain rattled off five possible sources of the problem. So I'll describe what I think you might be talking about, adding, in some cases, counter arguments (the problem really isn't a problem) and solutions where I can.


1) Burke seems to have fine proactive energy. (He's working against the group, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish -- but that doesn't seem to be what you're addressing.)

His Kicker is clear -- as a corporate man looking for a big score that will help him leap past the corporate big wigs, he's put in charge of babysitting a woman who's been in hypersleep for 57 years spouting a crazy tale of biological terrors -- that could be worth a fortune -- that nobody believes. But what if it's true. He takes action to investiage this via the colonists, then BANG the colonoists are out of contact, and organizes a crew to go investigate himself.

So maybe its a matter perspective. I see quite a lot here that's active. So maybe I am missing what you mean by using Burke as an example.

Or is the problem...

2) In your first post it seemed as if he real problem is that the players don't want to interact with other characters or take action with other characters present. (Is this why you're using Burke as the example?)

You wrote the players say, "But if the other players saw what I was up to when their characters weren't present my whole character concept would be ruined."

Now, this is a loner type, but it still might be a loner type who cares about something. Examples include, Batman, The Shadow, Spider-Man, Frank Serpico and so on... A loner protagonist breed. Small in number, but they're there.

Now, if this the problem, individual Kickers with lots of cross cutting and scene framing might well be the solution.

Or is it...

3) If you're using Burke as an example, and he's esentially a bad guy (worse than the alien queen really, cause he's willing to sell out his species for cash, and she'd never do that), and so he's not a protagonist in a "good guy" sense and that's what you mean by not being a protagnist?

Or could it be...

4) The whole protagonists "change" thing. I'd offer some do, some don't. Batman is pretty much Batman. (Dark Knight is cool cause now he's different.) Spider-Man changes -- over the years of publishing. In a single issue he gets emotinal -- but not seriously altered. James Bond. Certain heroes just stay the same. That's fine too.

But I think you'll find that change works best when focused through some sort of Premise (will he choose love or not?) and through play.

This might tie into possibility 3. Are you expecting the protagonists to become "better" people. To improve? Note that Ripley starts selfish, but becomes selfless. The alien queen is selfless and remains so. Burke has plenty of chances to change his way -- but doesn't. That's his character's story. Remaining the same is a story as well if there's something at stake on the table.

I don't think a good RPG Premise question is based on a choice between a Good Way to Be and a Bad Way to Be. It should be a good, terrible choice. So if you're referring to youre "selfish" vs. "generosity" example in your second post, remember that there are plenty of good reasons to be, for example, selfish.

My question to you (if I'm reading your second post correctly, and I might not be), are you expecting your players to change their characters, and if so why? That's their business. You may know which way you'd choose, or like other people to choose, but the point of a story is to discover which way a character chooses under pressure. And if they remain selfish -- well, that's the character.

Or perhaps (though I don't think it's this one, but it might be...)

5) The less the matter of protagist but the actual mechanical issue quoted above: that is, these players litterly want no on to see what their character does except them and (maybe) you? That is, they really think that revealing what their character does to the other players "ruins" the concept -- when, in fact, you might make it clear that by revealing what they're character is doing to the "audience" of players not in the scene, they're sharing how cool their character is.

I bring this last one up, because this has nothing to do with whether the character is a loner, and everything to do with whether the player is actually going to play in front of the other players at all. (Which is, of course, a huge, if not mind-boggling, issue.)

I'd offer that if the scenes are played out, rather than just told, the OOC stuff become active and engaging, and not just data.

The trick is the other players might get board. This is solved by the tool of the capital P Premise. It's not just a thematic tool. It's something that evey player has a vested interest in (ie, "How's Jenny going to handle this? Is she going to be selfish, or giving??)

I have no idea how your group might react to Premise or whether you're using it already. But that's a solution.

Anyway,

Those are the things I thought you might be talking about. I'm hoping it gets us closer to finding useful ideas.

Take care,

Christopher

jburneko wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote:
Player characer (i.e. protagonists) need to be dynamic. They need to experience significant change / transformation. However, many players approach characters as monolithic caricacatures -- personalities they might competently role-play (by which I mean character-acting), but not personalities they see as capable of revision and transformation in play.

Total agreement. This is the second, subsequent spin off problem of the one I first posed. The non-evolving character syndrome. Players often seem to have an inability to tell the difference between an action that is 'out of character' and an action that represents character evolution. If they see their character as 'greedy' then ANY act of generosity is considered out-of-character rather than as a plot moving act of character transition.

I think this has been brought up once before as being an inability to distinguish between 'character' and 'characterization.'

Jesse

Hello All,

I realize now, I made a serious mistake through out my posts in that I sort of created a wandering topic. In an attempt to discuss one thing I threw in several things that I thought were related but they were just that, 'related', and not really part of my original thought.

So the 'meat' of what I was getting at was this:

1) Ron said that he has observed that a lot of gamers do not know how to identify a protagonist in the absense of certain cliche verbal and visual cues. He also said that this leads to players who do a lot of fantasizing about how cool their characters are but that 'coolness' never manifests in actual play.

2) I added the observation that I think the same root problem results in a lot of gamers creating characters largely modeled off of secondary characters, foils, sidekicks, comic relief, 'bang' characters, and even villains. And then the problem of 'coolness' failing to manifest in actual play is that these characters are only cool when bounced off a proper protagonist which will be lacking in a group made up of these kinds of players.

3) So my question is: How do you identify during character creation that a player is going down the secondary character path? And once identified, how do you help direct the player into shaping that character into a protagonist without sacrificing the player's vision of why the character is 'cool.'

EXAMPLES include, but are not limited to, The Loner (Sunset Girl), The Shadowy Background Character (Cigarette Smoking Man), The Minor Antagonist (Burke), and The Comic-Relief (C3P0).

I think Sorcerer style Kickers go a HUGE way to aleviate the problem. But do they work with everything or are there some characters that just aren't, by nature, protagonists?

To address what Christopher said directly, I was primarily concerned with #5 in his post. That is, the player percieves his character's 'coolness' to come from the fact that the audience (i.e. other players) do not fully know what he's up to. Whether these 'shadowy machinations' are for or against the other players isn't the issue just the 'off screen'/'hidden agenda' nature of the character.

But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters. What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

Finally, I agree with Mike, the issue of static vs. dynamic characters is irrelivant to this discussion. That was a thought wholey sprung from my personal biases concerning what I enjoy in a story, so let's just forget that angle.

Jesse

jburneko wrote: But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters. What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

In the last two games I ran, one particular Player created, for both games, a comic relief character. He was the jokey screw-up, & the character was played for laughs--until a crucial moment when the PC's story came to a dramatic head. Then the Player would kick in to "major protagonist" mode & become the most rivetting PC in the game. It was amazing to watch.

Another example, from a non-RPG source, would be Xander in Buffy. At first he was played as the comic relief, & he still tends to be seen that way (even within the show by the other characters). But he's really not, he's one of the most important, dramatic characters in the cast.

Is it possible your worrying too much about this Jesse? Regardless of what the character appears to be at the beginning--the laconic cool guy, the comic relief, etc--it's entirely likely the PC will becomes a huge honkin' Protagonist-with-a-capital-P, through dealing with conflict.

Well, Josh, I think that Jesse has a valid concern in some ways. First, if no player makes a protagonist, that's a big problem (this needs no explanation, right?). And while it's interesting to have that shift from comic-relief character to protagonist when it occurs, I doubt it's something you can rely on. A player making the comic-relief probably wants to stick with comic-relief, and given that this will vary from player to player, I wouldn't count on it.

Even if a player decides that they do want to be the comic-relief, they should understand that they will have less protagonism. I've seen this become a problem. A player creates such a character, and then, when they are not a focus of the story, they complain. Players need to understand the role that certain roles should play. If you take a sidekick character, expect to get the sidekick's amount of spotlight. The worst is the player who creates the "cool loner with no problems and who doesn't care about anything", who then complains that the game is boring when he refuses the GM's plot hooks. This is a terrible problem. If a player wants a nascent protagonist, this should be decided early, too, or stated explicitly when the decision is made.

I find it surprising that players can't see these potential problems, but they don't. All I'm saying is that a player and GM should discuss the character's role in the storyline, and how the player is going to enjoy himself through the character. It all just needs to be a conscious part of game prep and development. But, given that understanding, I have no problem with players who don't want to play the pure protagonist. As long as I have at least one in the group who does.

(This goes for most Sim and Gamist as well as Narr; usually you are Simming story or setting that require heroic characters. Imagine a supers game with all sidekicks.)

Mike

Good point, Mike.

This thread reminds me of a paper I wrote for one of those "Heroic Traditions in Western Literature" college courses. In the old heroic traditions the heroes were not behavioral role models. The heroes embodied certain abstract ideal qualities but the stories also went to great lengths to distance the hero from the common man (or even the common warrior) in the audience. You weren't born supernaturally, cast out by a usurper and fostered in a foreign land, etc., nor can you leap fifty feet or wear ox skulls for shoes or whatever. So don't think you can just go around acting like a hero -- and be glad of that, because Fate has the hero's downfall already mapped out. The role models in the oldest legends weren't the heroes; they were the seconds or sidekicks. You can't be like Cuchulainn, but the songs tell you you can (and should!) be like Loeg mac Riangabr.

What does this have to do with characters in RPGs? I think a trace of the idea of the protagonist as not-entirely-human and therefore inaccessible persists in our more recent literature. Though there's no practical reason why a player cannot role-play a supernatural hero or a character with superhuman abilities, playing a true protagonist still raises two concerns. One is that the player will be unable to "get into" the character. "But," says the player, "I never had to watch my family get burned alive by barbarian raiders, how can I possibly role-play a character who has something like that in his background?" The second is that deep protagonists often lead very constrained lives. Mythic heroes are pushed around by Fate from the get-go, and even modern protagonists experience it to some degree. Buffy gets to make few decisions compared with Xander and Willow. (In fact, Buffy's whole premise recently has become a self-conscious exploration of the conflict between real life and the constraints of protagonism.)

Here's the thing: both of these concerns apply to play in Actor Stance. Sidekick-style characters can be an adaptation for players that helps them to (1) be able to "stay in character" better, and (2) resist railroading. The irresponsible rogue at least gets to pretend it's his decision whether or not to go on the quest to save the world (again); the Hero of the Realm doesn't. This habit becomes unnecessary in non-railroady game styles (including unabashed Gamism), and it becomes maladaptive in self-conscious Narrativist play, where Actor Stance performance isn't as emphasized and it's OK for the player-character to be pushed around by fate because it's the player, as fate, doing the pushing.

- Walt

Hey,

Just for clearity I want to say that I agree with Mike. I think it's entirely possible to effectively create and play a sidekick style character if the player fully understands that. But I'm harkening back to Ron's original point that most don't. And I also agree with Mike that this, I think, can cause problem's across all modes of play.

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Okay. I think we're mixing up issues again, so I'm going ... well, I don't know what I'm going to do, but here we go:

1) Sidekicks / Comic Relief: Since the Grand Survey of Role Playing Game Habits hasn't been done yet, I'd offer that phrases like "most don't" are dangerous -- if only because in my Chicago group we'd often divide up cast responsibilites -- and this often meant playing sidekicks, and we did it well and effectively. I don't think there's a plague of this sidekick as problem out there in the world -- if only because I've never seen it.

I'd offer that if the players are creating "sidekicks" but not playing them as such, it's because they don't know they've created sidekick characters (so couldn't play them as sidekicks anyway) and the real problem is a passivity on the part of the players. (After all, C3PO has been featured as a protagonist in comic book stories -- so no character is fixed -- it's a matter of situation.)

So I think the issue is the players and what they want to do with their characters.

2) Back to Jesse's main question: this (to me) incomprehensible idea that the players want to create characters who want to do things out of eyesight of other players, characters.

Before we can go on:

Jesse: do you mean to say the players A) literally won't have their characters do cool things if other *players* are present to witness the description of the events; or B) won't have their character take action with other player characters around.

If B, is the solution simply to avoid trying to get the party to stop being the "multi-legged-adventuring-beast."

If A.... I really don't know. You seem to be suggesting these people want to play one-on-one with a GM. Is this actually the case.

Because for both of these circumstances talk of sidekicks and comic relief are moot. C3PO and R2D2 carry the story at the start of Star Wars till Obi Wan shows up. The real issue is, do your players actaully want to play with other human beings.

Looking forward to the answer to these mysteries,
Christopher

Hello Christopher,

Hmmm... I know that "most don't" isn't a prime choice of words. I always mean (and take it to mean) in my experience... And I'm largely talking about the issue that Mike describes where a player creates and plays a fundamentally secondary character role and then can't figure out why he isn't as effecitve/as cool as he thought he would be/isn't satisfied with the experiece/isn't more central to the action/whatever.

A SUBSET or more precisely, an example, of this secondary character situation is the one I call "The Shadowy Background Character" When it comes to the situation you are describing I am very much talking about (A) but it isn't because the character wants a one-on-one game or doesn't want to have other players. Without other players, his character concept is defeated. The reason the player percieves this kind of character to be cool is because of his ability to pull the wool over the other player's eyes. He enjoys passing notes to the GM and droping hints to the other players and his 'coolness' is increased everytime the players, and I do mean THE PLAYERS, fail to figure out or are even aware of the specific player's shadowy operations. The more wrong guesses and false assumptions the other players make about the character's activities and motivations the, 'cooler' his character becomes in the player's eyes.

Just think of a deep imersionist hard core character-based simulationist who REALLY wants to play The Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files and you'll be spot on with the kind of player I'm talking about.

Now this all sounds very malicious and disruptive but I maintain it doesn't have to be, if caught early on and given some focus, direction and purpose. And I'm curious about what techniques can be used for identifying and shaping such situations for ALL secondary character situations, not just this specific example.

Jesse

In one of my early RPG groups there was a very effective solution for that type of play...such characters were killed quickly, mercilessly, and with little to no actual evidence of wrong doing. The general rule was "3 secret notes to the GM = Axe in the head while sleeping".

That's somewhat tongue in cheek, but in seriousness, unless the game was structured to be *about* that sort of thing (like Paranoia) such activity was largely undesireable. By undesireable I mean designed for that single players enjoyment without consideration for the enjoyment of the rest of the group. Such "selfish" play was dealt with harshly in that group. On the other hand, the same group was not above playing dumb as a thief merrily pickpocketed people...as long as it was done in the open and all players could enjoy the sneakery.

Hello,

Christopher Kubasik wrote: ...do you mean to say the players A) literally won't have their characters do cool things if other *players* are present to witness the description of the events; or B) won't have their character take action with other player characters around.

jburneko wrote: A SUBSET or more precisely, an example, of this secondary character situation is the one I call "The Shadowy Background Character" When it comes to the situation you are describing I am very much talking about (A) but it isn't because the character wants a one-on-one game or doesn't want to have other players. Without other players, his character concept is defeated. The reason the player percieves this kind of character to be cool is because of his ability to pull the wool over the other player's eyes. He enjoys passing notes to the GM and droping hints to the other players and his 'coolness' is increased everytime the players, and I do mean THE PLAYERS, fail to figure out or are even aware of the specific player's shadowy operations. The more wrong guesses and false assumptions the other players make about the character's activities and motivations the, 'cooler' his character becomes in the player's eyes.
[Snip.]
Now this all sounds very malicious and disruptive but I maintain it doesn't have to be, if caught early on and given some focus, direction and purpose. And I'm curious about what techniques can be used for identifying and shaping such situations for ALL secondary character situations, not just this specific example.

lehrbuch wrote: I've played in a couple of really good Vampire games where there was a lot of out-of-the-room plotting between individual players and the GM. These were long term games that ran for a number of years.

It worked well, I think, because the resolution of these plots was conducted openly. It was only the lead up to them that was hidden. When events happened in the game it was often tricky to determine which characters were responsible. "Secret" plotting really helped us as players get into the mindset of paranoid, backstabbing characters.

jburneko wrote: But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters. What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

Julian Kelsey wrote: I'm thinking in terms of a game that tries to balance player involvement by balancing character capacity. Ending up with every character aimed at being some sort of hero.

One reason I think players may base characthers off side kicks is that protagonists are to well know, to well developed. A jedi based off of Luke would be seen as 'derivative' or 'poor role playing'. Also the player might feel locked into what has been done before.
Basing a characther off a sidekick gives a known starting point for the characther, but allows the player to develope the character themselves. Also, players may not want to be a protagonist right away. Perhaps they feel uncomfortable with the setting/their charachter. Thus, being a sidekick for a while gives them a chance to grow into it, but they can still be a protagonist later when the characther is more developed. Even C3PO had flashes of protaganism. He managed to bluff Storm Troopers pretty well on the Death Star.

I think the problem is not have explicit mechanics for protaganism, but getting the GM to have an understanding of players goals for it. This is complicated by the fact that players may have trouble explicitly stating these goals and the fact that if a player explictily states a goal to the GM, then they feel somewhat commited to it, as they know the GM will work toward it. However the players goals may change over time; but one can see how this could be fustrating for the GM.

Comment on the 'secret paranoid games'. This is one of those things that probably should be explicitly stated as part of the game. I know as a player I would feel cheated if a large number of things happend I didn't know about. This is because there is one GM, so when a characther is not activly doing something one can at least enjoy watching other parts of the story. Thus, if I was denied knowledge of large parts of the story on a regular basis without knowing this ahead of time, I would feel somewhat cheated. Maybe I'm just weird or something. (Probably should be a seperate thread actually)

I have had severe problems with this sort of play, aslthough I conceptualised this as the "disengaged" character, the voluntary stranger in a strange land. The most striking example occurred when setting up my first celtic-themed game in a setting entirely of my own creation - I knew for certain this would be alien and interesting to the players but still one wanted to play "someone from somewhere else". He explained this partially as a defense against asusmed knowledge - he could then ask questions IC - but in the light of this players broader character choices I reckon the character was chosen becuase it would be uncommitted and free to engage or disengage at will. This is valid, but uselerss to a GM - this is a character who is actively avoiding becoming protagonised, or at least can only be protagonised in the stranger-inna-strange-land scenario.

I think many players, in the sense that RP is a wish fulfillment thing, seek an experience of the free agent. I suspect that what my be attractive about the Smoking Man is that he is an agent of change but does not appear as restricted as Mulder and Scully, bound by bureucratic intransigence. Similarly the Man With No Name rides out of and then back into the sunset without ever becoming committed, their actions motivated by personal history rather than situational need.

Eventually the character I mentioned became a destructive influence - I was having t run exactly the sort of game I had NOT wanted to run to deal with the players constant "why should I". I had to default to bribery but even there the reward system I had prepared - promotion in rank - was not interesting to this character who was only interested in extremely portable chattels. And the commitment to internal continuity of character prevented the evolution of this PC into someone more engaged in their surroundings as it would have done to a real person in the real world.

I have on occassion done this myself, on being exposed to a totally new group whose play style I knew nothing about in a new game. Here I deliberately opted out, but equally I knew I had no commitment to the character and ditched it for another after 5 or 6 sessions. Perhaps partly it arises from the confrontational nature of old school games, in which social systems had no utility and only existed as mechanisms for the GM to produce plot devices. In this case being hermetically sealed from the motivating factors in the Situation is good gamist sense. I think of this as one of the "bad habbits" we inherited. To a large extent I think that games which pre-cast characters in a subset of a setting work better ion this regard, in that the focussed nature of their setup to some degree compels and to some degree encourages commitment, through both greater definition and greater proportional influence such contacts wield.

damion wrote: One reason I think players may base characthers off side kicks is that protagonists are to well know, to well developed. A jedi based off of Luke would be seen as 'derivative' or 'poor role playing'.

contracycle wrote: I think many players, in the sense that RP is a wish fulfillment thing, seek an experience of the free agent. I suspect that what my be attractive about the Smoking Man is that he is an agent of change but does not appear as restricted as Mulder and Scully, bound by bureucratic intransigence. Similarly the Man With No Name rides out of and then back into the sunset without ever becoming committed, their actions motivated by personal history rather than situational need.

Eventually the character I mentioned became a destructive influence - I was having t run exactly the sort of game I had NOT wanted to run to deal with the players constant "why should I". I had to default to bribery but even there the reward system I had prepared - promotion in rank - was not interesting to this character who was only interested in extremely portable chattels. And the commitment to internal continuity of character prevented the evolution of this PC into someone more engaged in their surroundings as it would have done to a real person in the real world.

I have on occassion done this myself, on being exposed to a totally new group whose play style I knew nothing about in a new game. Here I deliberately opted out, but equally I knew I had no commitment to the character and ditched it for another after 5 or 6 sessions. Perhaps partly it arises from the confrontational nature of old school games, in which social systems had no utility and only existed as mechanisms for the GM to produce plot devices. In this case being hermetically sealed from the motivating factors in the Situation is good gamist sense. I think of this as one of the "bad habbits" we inherited.

Hello,

contracycle wrote: ...To a large extent I think that games which pre-cast characters in a subset of a setting work better ion this regard, in that the focussed nature of their setup to some degree compels and to some degree encourages commitment, through both greater definition and greater proportional influence such contacts wield.

jburneko wrote: But I am also just as concerned about the players who create 'comic-relief' style characters. What do you do with a player who wants to play C3P0?

Julian Kelsey wrote: I'm thinking in terms of a game that tries to balance player involvement by balancing character capacity. Ending up with every character aimed at being some sort of hero.

Le Joueur wrote:
I think this is a false parallel. I have (on at least one occasion) worked to prove that these are not a good fit. Giving someone the capability will not make them use it. Balancing efficacy would only work if everyone were equally motivated.

Le Joueur wrote: I think it would be better to equip the group with tools to manipulate involvement when 'it does not fit' for them, and information to make them sensitive to this situation. Mechanically forcing involvement is antithetical to fun, I think (in some cases, at least).

Julian Kelsey wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I think it would be better to equip the group with tools to manipulate involvement when 'it does not fit' for them, and information to make them sensitive to this situation. Mechanically forcing involvement is antithetical to fun, I think (in some cases, at least).

I wasn't trying to mandate involvement, but rather considering the case of strict adherence to rules that worked against involvement of an unlikely but fun character. A tool for a particular type of poor fit between concept and system.

In this case we have a willing thirsty horse, but where do we find water for it?

Here's a link that might be of interest to the people on this thread:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=roleplayers&itemid=244636&view=1695644

Very interesting. Maybe we've stumbled onto something else, then. I have a question I'd like to ask, then: does leadership emerge in your games?

You know to an extent, when you are sitting there are the players are engaged, scheming away and talking amongst themselves, you-as-GM almost fade into the background, a bit like an anthropologist crouched under a bush watching gorillas or something. One of the things I have noticed from this vantage point is the emergence of a sort of consensual system, in which one person will be left as final arbiter. Proposition and challenge will fly about, but eventually someone says "we'll do X" and X is duly done.

Perhaps it was just an alpha emerging among the teenage males, and to some extent that was true in the broader context. OTOH, I wonder if people who know they have such a player feel free to make sidekick characters. Or is it just a feature of the human group which, in its shared environment, operates somewhat autonomously from the broader social context and hence develops an independenat dynamic?

Do others find that some players are the "life of the game" and others are relative wall flowers? Do you think the behaviour changes over time? Do you think its inherent to the person or a property of the pseudo-autonomous dynamic? Have you ever found a game loses its sparkle, doesn;t work, wiothout a certain player?

To this end, I'd be inclined to suggest/request responses to the questions posed in this link above here. I'd have replied there but anonymous postying is disabled, and anyway I'd be interested to see the forges answers.

1) When you first create a character, do you consciously consider how it's likely to function in relation to other PCs?

No, not at the start of a new game. If introducing a replacement character and I have good working knowledge of the existing PC's, I will think about the relationships that will likely develop and whether or not I'm overlapping someones competence niche. I might even say that a character doesn't really gel for me in these circumstances until I have an idea of how they will interact with other characters.

2) Do you generally think of your characters as stars in their own story, part of other characters' stories, or members of an equal team?

2) Not exactly, equal team is probably closest. I seldom consciously think of other characters as having stories. When I do think about it its a conscious diversion into the "all getting along" metagme department.

3) Would you be content playing an otherwise involving and well-run campaign where the main focus was always on someone else's personal plotline, and you were just helping them achieve their private goals rather than concentrating on your own?

Yes, if it was good. I've had partial success GMing such a game too, something which started as a one player game and then expanded to incorporate others. Some good and some bad to it, but it was early days and I'd be interested to try it again, with willing players.

4) Does it vary widely from game to game whether you're playing a leader or a follower, or do you tend to stick to roughly the same sorts of roles?

It varies, but leadership roles more often than not I'd say. I've had some very good experiences with specialist, niche filling characters though and I sometimes seek out that role - in fact to an extent this kinda alternates with leader characters, now that I think about it.

5) Have you ever played a character that was completely subserviant to another PC (a squire, servant, ghoul, etc.) for any length of time? Did you enjoy it, or did it become frustrating?

Yes, several, I find them quite good fun. In fact I quite like structures of this nature among the players, having some sot of "official" relationship which they break out of as actual peers, which is actually useful in settling in-game disputes, in my experience. Its a sim vent for something that might otherwise be personal. I have sometimes exploited this for comic effect - if someones youre boss they're responsible for your actions, right? :) I've seen a lot of players do it, partly at my instigation, and they have used it in so many interesting ways that everyone is totally comfortable with it.

6) In considering the above, does it make a significant difference to you whether you're playing in a tabletop game or a LARP?

NA

contracycle wrote: One of the things I have noticed from this vantage point is the emergence of a sort of consensual system, in which one person will be left as final arbiter. Proposition and challenge will fly about, but eventually someone says "we'll do X" and X is duly done.

5) Have you ever played a character that was completely subserviant to another PC (a squire, servant, ghoul, etc.) for any length of time? Did you enjoy it, or did it become frustrating?

Yes, indeed. In which case - single protagonist stories with a supporting cast might very well work in RPG.