Well, having discovered that the search function of this board doesn't get me what I'm looking for, I'm going to talk about filling roles in a game. I'm fairly sure someone must have talked about this before, but I couldn't seem to find it.

I'm thinking of what I've come to call "Ecological niches" when I'm setting up a campaign. If I'm running a High Fantasy campaign and don't have any healers in the character concepts handed me, or everyone wants to be a magic user of some sort, I'll solicit for a wider spectrum of characters. This may fall under what someone (I think it's Fang) calls Genre Expectations. This part is elementary, trivial, and obvious.

But I don't see this extend it to players, which may be a mistake. I'm sure Ron (or someone) must have gone into this at some point. If you've got one person who prefers to be in the background, don't expect them to take a starring role; there are hundreds of second fiddles in the world's orchestras, and they simply make the music richer. If I've got two glory hounds, I need to make sure that they take roles which are different enough that they can be party leader at different points, and take the spotlight in turn. There are people who play specialists for fun, and they need to have challenges to their speciallty so they don't get bored.

Now, there is a problem that arises when niche expectations aren't met, as with genre and style expectations. If the game master isn't prepared to allow a glory hound to take the spotlight or the merry prankster to have fun, or if he tries to force the support crew into starring roles, he's going to have unhappy players, and he may wonder why. I've got a fellow player who likes the "Excelsior" niche (his characters are the best at what they do – the unkind call him a minimaxer), and complaints from other players caused him to quit the game we were both in.

I don't know if this is a call to action or anything, but I think that there are issues that need to be taken into account here for enjoyment of our games.

Try searches use "protagonism" I didn't really follow the threads on this, but it sounds like what you're talking about. Or at least pretty close to it AFAICT

Hey Mark, good post!

Mark D. Eddy wrote: I'm thinking of what I've come to call "Ecological niches" when I'm setting up a campaign. If I'm running a High Fantasy campaign and don't have any healers in the character concepts handed me, or everyone wants to be a magic user of some sort, I'll solicit for a wider spectrum of characters. This may fall under what someone (I think it's Fang) calls Genre Expectations. This part is elementary, trivial, and obvious.

Mark D. Eddy wrote: But I don't see this extend it to players, which may be a mistake. I'm sure Ron (or someone) must have gone into this at some point. If you've got one person who prefers to be in the background, don't expect them to take a starring role; there are hundreds of second fiddles in the world's orchestras, and they simply make the music richer. If I've got two glory hounds, I need to make sure that they take roles which are different enough that they can be party leader at different points, and take the spotlight in turn. There are people who play specialists for fun, and they need to have challenges to their speciallty so they don't get bored.

Now, there is a problem that arises when niche expectations aren't met, as with genre and style expectations. If the game master isn't prepared to allow a glory hound to take the spotlight or the merry prankster to have fun, or if he tries to force the support crew into starring roles, he's going to have unhappy players, and he may wonder why. I've got a fellow player who likes the "Excelsior" niche (his characters are the best at what they do – the unkind call him a minimaxer), and complaints from other players caused him to quit the game we were both in.

Hey,

Jared has spent a lot of time working out "player roles" as a fundamental element of role-playing. This was a major topic of discussion within some of our "character class threads."

Best,
Ron

Running things down the line:

First, I don't think that I'm talking about protagonisation or protagonism – that seems to be more a player/character in-game relationship, almost a wierd type of stance. I'm concentrating mainly on character creation, and setting up a game so that everyone will be able to naturally play to their strengths and not feel pressured to play a role that they don't like.

Second, the niche-filling idea is nothing more than a tool – it's certainly possible to have a game where everyone plays essentially the same type of character, but if they're playing the same character, there's nothing there to play, imo*.

(By the way, Fang, I knew it was Scattershot and the poster who used Le Joueur, but I wasn't sure 'Fang' was the correct name...)

I dunno – maybe this is a completely new thought, and should go into a new thread – but I'm wondering if there should be some sort of theory like Gamesmanship vs. Sportmanship for Role-playing Games.

—MDE

*Wierd side thought – would it actually be possible to run a game where everyone played the same character in turn? Groundhog Day meets Conan the Barbarian, maybe?

Mark D. Eddy wrote: Wierd side thought – would it actually be possible to run a game where everyone played the same character in turn? Groundhog Day meets Conan the Barbarian, maybe?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
Not only is this possible, it's do-able even without any kind of in-game rationale about why three players are playing the same character.

And actually, it's been done. I did it with the Jay and Silent Bob RPG. And another Forge regular has plans for a game where the players all play one character (and it's a great idea too). If only he'd write it...

Yeah, lots of these. Were you refering to The Hero Emergent, Jared. Where everyone takes turns playing the hero, and otherwise plays peasants or something? Sounds just like what the doctor ordered.

Also, there's Khaotic, where all the players are in the head of an interdimansional monster, and vie for control of it (though they are supposed to be a team). I also read an OTE advanture, where two players play alternate sides of a single person with MPD.

When Everyone is John came out someone mentioned that one could make a Herman's Head type RPG, where each player played a facet of the character's personality all trying to become dominant when appropriate.

As for the general notion on this topic, I'd say that it's probably an excellent idea to consider how niches are going to be assigned in any design. The fact that it's just been left to tradition and random player desires in the past has often led to problems in play. This includes a good description of what the GMs role is (assuming the game has one).

Take InSpectres, for example. The generation system implies certain character types that make sense. And once the character is on board, there is little ambiguity as to his role (and any such ambiguity as may exist is then part of the role of being in a dotcom organization; brilliant). Other games assign role to PCs via drives, like TROS with SAs. Without SAs, all TROS characters have the role Grim Slayer or somesuch. With SAs you suddenly know where the character is going.

That's the important part, of course. Such a role gives the player an idea of what he's supposed to do in the game. In D&D, the classes provide such roles; the cleric heals, the thief searches for traps, etc. Players are never at a loss for what they should be doing. In too many games are these things left to random chance and the hope that the players will somehow adopt appropriate roles.

Mike

Hey,

Jared is almost certainly referring to my few pages of notes regarding a game called "M'iko," which might see the light of day eventually. The title character is a cute anime chick having adventures; all the players treat her as the player-character at all times.

It's relevant to this discussion, though, because all players are "equal" relative to the title character, at first glance. However, during a given conflict, they take on different "roles" in the conflict based on the cards they've drawn. If one person wants M'iko to deal with the conflict using her whiz-tech skills, and if another wants her to deal with it using her nifty-kick fighting skills, they're going to have to bid. It's possible that they might agree about it, but it's also possible that they won't - numerically, sometimes she's more effective if they don't agree, and sometimes she's more effective if they do.

The whole thing is an exercise in cooperation vs. ownership-competition.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Jared is almost certainly referring to my few pages of notes regarding a game called "M'iko," which might see the light of day eventually. The title character is a cute anime chick having adventures; all the players treat her as the player-character at all times.

I was actually thinking of an example where five players all want to play Arnold Schwartzenegger as Conan the Barbarian in the same FRPG – that strikes me as uninteresting. Having players with competing concepts and personalities vieing for control of a single character – that seems interesting.

But (to drag this back to where I was hoping to go with this thread) what are the types of player roles you all have seen? Here's a list of some of what I've seen in the past couple of decades:

Merry prankster – here to have fun, and make sure everyone else has fun, too.

Glory Hound – wants to make sure that they do something important in the game.

Support Crew – doesn't care about doing anything important, more interested in making the game run smoothly.

Killer – wants something, anything, dead at their character's hands before the session is over. (This is usually a short-term stance)

Rules Engineer – wants to make sure that everything goes "by the book," and is usually willing to help rewrite "the book."

Excelsior – wants their character to be the best at one task, and proved thus in-game.

Social Butterfly – wants to have fun with their friends, and could care less if a game even happens.

Escape Artist – just wants to be someone else during the game.

I'm sure that there are others, and I may be doing a rewrite/riff off Robin's Laws, but what do you all think?

Mark D. Eddy wrote: I'm sure that there are others, and I may be doing a rewrite/riff off Robin's Laws, but what do you all think?

Well, charachter roles are a fairly strong function of premis. Thus if there are various situations in game that can only be dealt with in a certain way, people will have to fill these roles.

in Classic DnD, with the 'adventuring party' premis. Roles are defined by the challenges the group can face. Fighters fight stuff, mages deal with magic stuff, rouges deal with traps.


Superhero genera works similarly. Roles are determied by the possible opposition, although somewhat more loosely. A team that lacked any way to deal with flying opposition would be in trouble.

This sort of 'opposition' determined roles arrise if the possible conflicts the game allows have things that can only be countered by certian other things. In a game without this property roles are specified by the players.

While I don't have Riddle of Steel(yet), I have got the understanding that it works by using charachters Spirtual Attributes, thus each characther essentally creates a role for themselves via the SA's and these are then woven together to
create the story. If I'm correct, it's a cool way of doing it. Actually, quite a few narrativist games seem to work this way, having characther created roles, rather than setting/opposition created roles.

There might be a few meta-charachter roles. 'Leader' comes to mind. Admitably this is commonly defined by a player role of the same name, but I don't think that is strictly necessary.

Mark D. Eddy wrote: Having players with competing concepts and personalities vieing for control of a single character – that seems interesting.

damion wrote: in Classic DnD, with the 'adventuring party' premis. Roles are defined by the challenges the group can face. Fighters fight stuff, mages deal with magic stuff, rouges deal with traps.

If all of your players are bricks, the only challenges you'll be able to throw at them are combat challenges – you can't give them a murder mystery, you can't give them a magically locked door (without some other way in...), and so on. But that's based on what you're doing; there's an old saying, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems start looking like nails."

And that applies to a wider scope, too. If you don't have enough tools to do the job, you'll start looking for a different job. I firmly believe that with the right tools, any style of play is possible in one group. Now, you have to be fairly explicit that that's what being done, or you'll lose gamers when they see it being done; I need to do some more thinking about what those tools are – I do it for myself and those who game with me, but I don't know how to articulate what it is that I do.