Heya,

For quite some time our gaming group has been aware of actively practising casting particular players into particular character roles in the games played by us. The reasoning (for us) is one of pure efficiency : some players do better at other roles than others. For us, this thing works, but lately I've been thinking about it as a phenomenon.

On one hand, (a part of) role-playing (for some) is about playing characters widely different from us and in some sense daring to try something new and challenging. I might, for example, play an intensely charismatic character exploring the trials and tribulations of leadership and while I might at the same time be a very uncharismatic and uninspiring person in real life (but I assure you, in actual fact I'm quite the contrary .. kidding, guys).

This is a thing which pops up in discussions about role-playing quite often. How to play a very charismatic/intelligent/knowledgeable/etc character when I'm not? Certainly, there's been ideas regarding systems trying to minimize the problems of this very thing, but this isn't really the main thrust of me deciding to write about this.

I'm more interested in the use of casting by groups to handle this problem. Is this a topic worth exploring? Could more be done with casting? It just occurred to me that it is quite an unexplored territory (and as one of those daring few ever looking for that El Dorado, the thought of unexplored terriroty immediately appealed to me).

I believe the reason we're (currently) so big on casting is partly the pressure of old school role-playing systems which have fed our hardcore immersionist tendencies to that extent that we'd much rather see a player give us a magnificent oratory when his character is inspiring the troops before combat, than just see a simple "well, my character engages in brilliant rhetoric to raise the morale of troops. After bold and touching words, all the men raise their hands in a salute to their fearless leader", followed by a die roll. Of course, we do walk the middle road and have talked about talented/skilled/particular characters imposing what we call filters into our role-playing, meaning that all the words spoken by the player of a very persuasive character should be appropiately tinted and the appropiate factors taken into account. Nevertheless, we feel uncertain when casting players in roles that may be awkward for them.

Anyway, a lot of this may be obvious, but it hasn't been discussed (or I have missed it) on the Forge. Or maybe it is not so obvious? How many of you have thought about or experienced issues related to this subject?

- Joachim Buchert -

Actually, I've had a lot of problems with this going both ways.

1. A character who is supposedly eloquent, witty, and charismatic played by someone who, well, lacks a strong personality.

2. A character who is supposedly boorish, rude, and not very persuasive played by someone with a real-life silver tongue.

Honestly, although it comes at the expense of character immersion, the first situation is easier to handle with a system because you have rules for that kind of thing. At the very least, you can have the player make some kind of ability check and at least give it an effort.

I find it more difficult to deal with the latter scenario, and I'm not sure that you can impose a system-based control on it short of imposing some kind of punishment for playing "out of character."

I'm a little nervous about the idea of casting, which is really what I think of as type-casting. You're good at boorish thugs? Great, you're going to play one. (Player thinks, "But I'm tired of playing boorish thugs....") A variant on this is that people get comfortable with one role and can't be dislodged from it, game after game, until everything that used to be fun about the character is now just same-old, same-old. So as a conception in the abstract, I'm against casting.

As far as the "but what if I'm not particularly eloquent" thing, I must say that this only works for me for a short time. In a one-shot, or a short campaign, I think it's fine; you try something, find it doesn't work too well, and then move on. But in a longer campaign, it seems to me that you've got a simple choice: practice or change characters.

For goodness' sake, the audience isn't exactly hypercritical here -- they're your friends, and they want to like what you're doing. You can ham it up, or have a great little speech just suddenly stop dead because you get tongue-tied, or whatever, and that's going to be just fine. I know this isn't going to be a popular view, but I genuinely think that a lot of time this sort of thing is just a flabby old excuse for player laziness. If you can't speak ten words coherently in a row, you shouldn't take a character with a golden tongue, but all you really need is to be able to talk a little bit. And then practice. And practice again. In game time, out of game, on the toilet, in the shower (like Jared!), etc. Watch some movies with characters like yours, and talk their speeches, or bits of them, to yourself. Try some silly accents if that helps. Try some physical acting: get an object that's appropriate to the character, and think about how he or she moves it around, and then talk to yourself about that, in-character. What's so hard about this?

Now I'm assuming, based on Daredevil's post, that we're not talking about skills that do not get "acted," such as combat or whatever; this is I think the distinction he's making about intelligence and so on. I'm just talking about interpersonal skills. To be honest, I think that in a circle of good friends, anyone can be sexy, charming, boorish, masterful, domineering, or charismatic. Everyone kind of adds a "friend factor," a +10 to your roll as it were, and anyway they know what you're trying to do. It's trying that makes it happen.

If you have to cast people, they're probably not trying, IMO. If you want to cast people, and they want to try that, I say go for it, but keep your finger on the off-switch.

How about casting players into roles which go against their typical play styles? This isn't a new thing actually. I've tried and participated in games where pre-generated characters were made by the GM and then subsequently handed out according to GM preference. I met the technique with a positive outlook, but others tend to get very angry when you tell them what kind of character they can and cannot play. I suppose in my case I was worried about a habit I believe many roleplayers fall into: that of recreating the same character for every game you play in--only switching genres appropriately. Forcing me into an alternative role was a challenge that I enjoyed.

You could argue much of the player-hostility towards cross-type casting goes back to the game texts wherein players were encouraged to do whatever they wanted with their characters. Now I think that many games designers are abandoning the idea of pure open-ended char gen in favor of more limited character scopes. The advantage is of course a more focused game.

Do you think that you could apply further char gen limits with this type of cross-type casting at a formal design level? Do you think you'd survive the wave of anger such a restriction would provoke from your players?

fleetingGlow wrote: How about casting players into roles which go against their typical play styles?

This begs a question, though. We are allowed to expect not only adequate performances from stage/movie actors, but how feasible is placing such expectations on your gaming group, most of which are probably your good friends? I think my gaming group is increasingly doing this (but with good spirit and humor, mind you).

Well if I can turn to the bass player/band metaphor, I think I'd argue it comes down to audience. A band of course eventually performs for some group of people. This can make a big difference as far as expectations and critiquing goes. An audience who hasn't been present for all of the practice sessions of the group has a distanced, outsider perspective on the material produced by the group. Because the audience doesn't have as much invested in the band they can be unforgiving in their criticism. However, in roleplaying things are much different. The performance is directed only to those involved in the session itself. Add that to the fact that practice sessions are really the same as play sessions, and you'll see that it's much harder to put the same sort of expectations on roleplayers in your group.

Still, I think setting goals for each player could be a good thing. You might even call these goals standards. This is where reward systems can really be used effectively on the formal design level.

But my main argument is of course that roleplaying is not the same as acting and to stretch the similarities too far is a dangerous comparison. On some level I think that we all have expectations from our fellow players. Think about social contracts (unspoken or not). These sorts of things are a roleplayer's way of checking his fellow players. I also think that it's unfortunate that the GM is traditionally held responsible as the sole enforcer for such things. In a situation where all of the creative force, and all of the critiquing have to come from within the same group it seems silly to delegate all of one task to the GM.

Speaking of the GM, how do you think the idea of casting could extend to him? I'm sure you know of roleplayers who are better at GMing certain types of games than others. Do you cast GMs? Is it possible or rewarding, in the same way it can be for players, to cross-type cast a GM?

fleetingGlow wrote: But my main argument is of course that roleplaying is not the same as acting and to stretch the similarities too far is a dangerous comparison.

While I wouldn't go so far as to use explicit casting in anything other than a one-off game (to save time during game setup), I can appreciate the resons why some might find it attractive.

My own compromise solution is, when pitching a new campaign, to provide examples of the kinds of characters I think would fit in. I usualy just give a short description of the character that's easily customisable, or can be interpreted a number of ways. That way the payers can read the campaign introductory material, and get an idea of what kinds of characters I as GM think might fit in. Casting fits into this a little as I do bear in mind the preferences and foibles of the players in our group when describing the sample character descriptions.

This way I get all the advantages of casting - confidence that the characters and campaign will suit each other, characters that are likely to suit the player's preferences - while still offering the players considerable scope in designing their characters. At the end of the day, if they come up with a character concept I haven't thought of, we can discuss it and jointly come to an understanding of how the character will fit in.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

For those who like this sort of thing, check these out:

on making the same character over and over
Suspension of reality and playing odd characters

Neither are direct answers to the issues posed on this thread, but I think they provide extremely relevant companion concepts.

Best,
Ron

fleetingGlow wrote: How about casting players into roles which go against their typical play styles?

talysman wrote: we've already seen some games that ditch the concept of a character "needing" to be played "accurately" and instead played entertainingly. heck, we've also seen this used in film, television, novels, and comics: characters who, given their backstory, should in theory act in a particular way, but they instead act according to the requirements of the story: characters behaving courageously when they were never courageous before, absolute nobodies rising up to lead others in times of necessity, and so on. in some cases, this is done clumsily, but in many many other cases, it's done quite well; heck, the common theme of redemption requires exactly this sort of "going against character", because it's the whole point of the story. when the fighter refuses to fight, we know he's learned something; we don't complain that realistically, a fighter would just fight anyways.

clehrich,

I say right on!

The only thing I'd add would be in response to your mentioning of characters as people--or more precisely: do they exist or not? Without sounding like a loon, a roleplayer has to at once realize that characters are real and fake at the same time. Characters can exist in your own mind and in the minds of those fellow players sitting around the gaming table. As you put it, "a figment of your group's imagination, to be sure, but a three-dimensional and complex figment." As you rightly put, immersion is one way to help encourage this sort of complex development, but of course it's not the only one. I don't think you were implying such, but I wanted to point the fact out explicitly. Even if players act upon characters in a removed author stance they can still create characters as "living" as those players acting out their sessions.

Now, as far as casting is concerned, I think your comments on roleplaying being work sums up my viewpoint nicely. Thumbs up.

I think something interesting to consider would be the use of casting to help enforce social contract. If the social contract included stipulations to the effect that everyone must play their characters with a certain requirement of uniqueness for example, how could casting be used to solve problems? In what situations would casting help enforce social contract? And, more generaly, in what ways could you integrate casting into game design?

A couple people here (Fang and Walt, I believe) have occasionally made the statement "characters aren't real, they can't have motivations". while I don't always agree with them that this fact is relevant, it's certainly true, and I think it's relevant to this thread, and to role-playing in general. characters DON'T have personalities. for most games, we don't really need the fiction of "playing a character": the character is really a sort-of "grand motif" that the player chooses to weave into the group fiction being created by play.

I think what is very interesting to note, and very relevant to this, is the difference between the role of protagonists in traditional media and that of roleplaying games.

In a traditional story, the protagonists are identified with by the audience, and through the character's motivations and emotions, create emotional bonds in the audience, and second, elicit emotions from the audience. The audience reflects the emotions of the protagonists based on how well they identify with the characters(usually referred to as "acting ability").

In roleplaying games, the audience(the group) controls the protagonists, therefore it is impossible for a player to reflect the character's emotions, since the player his or herself is the origin of those motivations/emotions and is in control of how they get expressed. Unlike traditional media, emotions start with the audience, and work their way to the characters, not the other way around.

Chris

I've been attached to the statement, "characters aren't real, they can't have motivations." I plead not guilty!

What I have said time and again is 'characters aren't real, they can't have motivations all their own.' Walt pretty much laid it out in very clear detail. A character doesn't have anything resembling motivation until you pick it up and play it; even then the actual motivation is 'to do what would motivate the character.'

Basically, thinking that characters have motivations when you leave the room is psychosis.

Following 'character motivations' is always at the descretion of the player, often this follows the line between Author Stance and Actor Stance, but not always. Without acknowledging this descretion, you begin including schizoid behaviour as role-playing gaming. I know it's a fine point, but important and central to what I'm being cited for.

Please...return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Fang Langford

This definetly falls in the "rules can't cover everything perfectly category. I think we, as game designers, give advice on the subject and even provide bits of technology to help the GM, but in the end, it really has to be the GM, working with the rest of the troupe, that does any scripting. This can range from the GM saying, "I need a fighter, a mage, and someone of high social standing, to make this campaign work," to "Okay John I need you to write up a classic swashbuckler prince, George could you recycle Jazmine into this game, Martin you always play great Elves, so if you could... great... and so on). Some troupes just cast themselves because they have played with each other for so long, without GM intervention. It is all dependent on the troupe. So why we can give advice, it is, like so many things in a game, up to the GM and the troupe to work it.

With that said, I use a somewhat mechanical system in casting, which I do tailor to the troupe playing. [ This system is currently in the game tips at www.openroleplaying.org and in Continumn/ Convergence Point].

When I create a campaign I create two kinds of cards: Role Cards and Bit cards. Role cards have specific roles (archetypes, social positions, and sometimes the actual character) that fit the campaign. Bit cards are filled with skills, advantages, disadvantages, and direction on how to play the character (you are in love with X and so on). Each card is put in an envelope with a basic title on the front. First the role cards are put out and players can discuss who wants which one. After each player has one role card, the bit cards can be put out. The players can select one or more bit cards. The envelope can be traded between until the time it is opened.

Role Cards: When you create a campaign you often know that certain types are going to be helpful. Those types are set up on a role card, defining a role for the game. It comes with all the details (and their corresponding game mechanics) that have to be incorporated into the character. Some parts are conceptual (You are the knight of the Realm, 2nd son) or vague (Fighter class), or specific (take 2nd son disadvantage, Black sheep disadvantage, or CHA 18 no roll required). The cards are normally positive in nature. It is advantageous to take the role. The role cards are sealed in envelopes with vague listings on their front. They are looked over, selected, traded for, etc. Once you open the envelope, you must make your character using the details from the role card. (In random generation games, the pertinant rolls become what the card states automatically.) If you choose not to have a role card, you take your chances of being the odd character out and being underinvolved in the campaign.

Bit cards: These are small elements of skills, edges, and flaws that may be helpful to have in the campaign. These are packages like Belongs to school of fencing (skill points in fencing, but requires you to take the scar and nemesis flaw), belongs to school of fencing (a few skill points in fencing, some important contacts, and three nemesis.), and so on. Again they are sealed in an envelope. The title is listed on the top. Every player must take one of them. They may take additional ones as well. They can be traded for before they are opened. You make your character, then apply the bits.

Again, the cards I would generate for my troupe in playing a certain campaign, would be a bit different than what you should generate for your troupe playing the same campaign. You have to tailor any campaign to the troupe's taste. If you don't, no matter how brilliant the story and how much you work on the campaign, they might not like it.

Daredevil wrote: Heya,

For quite some time our gaming group has been aware of actively practising casting ....

- Joachim Buchert -