The Forge Archives

So I had an interesting conversation on Vincent's (aka lumpley) blog anyway: cf. http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=196">"Strong stuff indeed".  However, I'm afraid I may have overstepped or sidetracked discussion on there.  Anyhow, discussion came out of lumpley's starting statement:

Quote from: lumpleyResolution is how you participate in stuff happening, and development is how your participation changes over the course of the game. Anything on your character sheet that doesn't contribute to your participation, now or over time, is pointless.

Now, I could agree with that provided that "resolution" and "development" were construed broadly enough.  However, it lead to broader discussion of place of things like game stats, freeform description, and die rolls within the context of role-playing -- comparing games like Champions, The Riddle of Steel, Buffy, and Dogs in the Vineyard.  

I don't want to repeat that, but expand on it.  In particular, a late reply to my discussion was Charles' note:

Quote from: CharlesI think that a more useful way to think about it is not "What is on your character sheet that you don't use?" but instead, "What do you use that isn't on your character sheet?" If your character sheet includes a lot of irrelevant stuff, that probably won't hurt play much. If your character sheet doesn't include a lot of stuff that matters, then the mechanics of character creation (to the extent they are represented by what you end up with on a character sheet) are failing to support the stuff that matters. Even worse is if there is stuff on your character sheet that is wrong, if the game doesn't include mechanics for changing the representation of your character as your character evolves.

Now, I think I disagree with Charles.  I actually hold more to lumpley's original point: irrelevant stuff on the character sheet definitely does hurt, by distracting from the game.  However, unlike Charles, I do not think that the character sheet needs to be a microcosm of play.  i.e. There can be important parts of play which are not reflected on the character sheet, and that can be a good thing.  

My thinking here is guided by my Vinland campaign.  I spent a lot of time on the character sheets for that game.  I was using a variant of the RuneQuest system.  Very deliberately, everything on the main character sheet was physical, practical, and/or prosaic.  It had the usual BRP stats plus physical appearance, but nothing about psychology or spirituality or goals.  This was exactly what I wanted -- the game emphasized the similarity of the PCs, and the realities of life there.  

During the game, I also came up with little folders for the character sheet.  Included in the folder were the family trees that were frequently consulted during play, and also the logs of past episodes.  So this was again very pointed.  Any non-familial relationship had no representation on the game.  So, for example, when Kjartan had an affair with Silksif -- there was no reflection.  On the other hand, marriages were dutifully noted in the updated family trees.  

Artistically, I think this was a meaningful contrast.  In a way, the character folders as a whole represented the general social attitudes.  I think this was important because the rest of play tended to naturally gravitate to the heroic and spectacular.  The character sheets were the grounding, the connection, for the game as a whole.  i.e. They played a specific role within the game, rather than being a microcosm for the game as a whole.  

---------------------

On the other hand, I ponder the current Buffy campaign that I am co-GMing.  I have not worked nearly as much on the character sheets in this game, and I don't think they work quite as well.  Still, even in the ideal, I don't see them as a microcosm.  I see two sides in a way:
1) The in-character blogs (textual, developed off-screen) and in-character dialogue (verbal : during game session).  
2) The character sheet (textual, developed off-screen) and action resolution (verbal : during game session).  

I see these two sides as being complements to each other but not identical.  i.e. If you looked only at one or the other, I'm fine if that gave a skewed or incomplete view of the game.  The contrast seems like it could be very meaningful -- much like how in the Buffy show there are parallels but also differences between the human plots (such as love stories) and supernatural plots (such as demon-slaying).  I like this aspect, actually.  It reminds me of plays with strong subtext -- i.e. where there is something very important that no one talks about directly but that is nonetheless sitting front and center.  

The character sheet in Buffy doesn't have as clear a meaning to me yet, but it is still useful.  I can see some contrasts: i.e. Chip is more competant on paper than he gives the impression of in dialogue, which is deliberate.  The same is true of Max to a degree.  But it doesn't reflect a grand plan.  

---------------------

So, anyhow, I was hoping to discuss other ways that the character sheet plays a role.  I know that some people like the character sheet to be a microcosm and/or a guide of how play is supposed to go, for example.

Hi John,

My take on the issue (which I don't think I articulated effectively there) is that both approaches are valid. I read it that Vincent was saying for a narrowly focused game design, ruthlessly throwing out everything on the sheet that doesn't directly relate to play is effective. Considering his focus on his blog (those are the only types of games he's interested in discussing), I think it makes sense to bring the more general conversation here.

Games that discard universal statistics that model the real world use this approach. Characters tend to interact with the game world using their relevant attributes, but those can as easily be "Bitter Cynic" or "Loves Clair" as they could STR, DEX, CON, and INT. Under this approach, if the game is all about high-stakes political intrigue, you know how well Bill is able to influence the Duke, but not how much he can dead-lift.

I don't think that there would ever be a game where the character is fully and completely represented solely by what's on the character sheet. Obviously there's information the players contributed to the SIS about Bob that's not written down there. I feel like that was what you felt was being argued for on Vincent's blog, but I didn't read it that way. I felt it was more an issue that if something isn't important in the SIS, it doesn't need to be written down.

I think it all comes back to the character sheet being a useful part of play. The character sheet should reflect the character's contact points with the rules; I've played in many games where this wasn't the case. I see readjusting the rules, and the character sheet, to match the focus of the game as being a helpful thing, and I don't see that focusing as limiting.

It's not that if you play Dogs, you can't introduce some new element to your character that's not on the sheet -- but rather that you'll likely add this new element to the sheet at the next opportunity. (I read about PCs taking Fallout that fleshes out their character all the time. In a lot of games, you'd have written down "Questioned his faith" as a note, but here you'd be able to add it to the sheet as something that interacts with the rules.

Is it all that different a style of play than what you're describing? No, not really. But for someone who's played in many games where nothing on the character sheet was referenced, other than the text boxes for "backstory" or "notes", it might be a considerable aid in having the rules actually aid play rather than be ignored.

(known as Charles on Anyway)

I have to agree with you, John. It seems to me that what I meant could be better stated as things that are unthinkingly not included in the character sheet that play an important part in play might better be included on the character sheet (to the extent that the character sheet is the physical manifestation of character creation). It certainly seems to me that your process of creating the Vineland game's character sheets was well thought out in terms of what effect including things on the character sheet vs. not including them would have. It is interesting to see things not stated (or not recorded) being used to powerful effect. The idea of using the mechanics to force certain things within the game to be viewed as unspoken (even though they remain central to the game) because certain portions of the mechanics fundamentally ignore them is one I haven't run across before. It actually seems like it would achieve that very nice effect of having the mechanics emulate the experience, for while Kjartan may care enormously about his affair with Silskif, and the player may as well, character and player are placed in parallel positions of having the formal rules of the game and the formal rules of society refuse to fully acknowledge that interest.

It still seems to me that including things on a character sheet that don't come up in play is only a problem to the extent that it means that character creation was focused on things that weren't relevant to play. However, having things that are on your character sheet, do come up, and don't contribute to play is definitely something to be avoided. Since things that are put on your character sheet, particularly things that it is agreed that everyone should have on their character sheet (say, Hit Points or Relationships), are very likely to come up, even if they don't contribute to enjoyable play, it is probably more important to trim off the junk than it is to add on everything.

I should probably mention that I actually play fairly freeform games, but that I find formalized character generation systems interesting and productive as a way of helping me to think about a character, and frequently use them to help me create a character, even if the character sheet itself will never actually be used in play (or never actually exists). So when I talk about a character sheet, I am really talking more about the end product of the process of creating a character than I am about an actual sheet of paper. This may make me less than clear, but I find it helps me to get more out of discussions that are framed in mechanics oriented terms.

Hi John,

To really examine the subject, maybe it might help to look back at Vincent's chart here:

http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html

A character sheet, a blog, the family trees in the character folders- all of these are cues to help remind the group about what matters in play.  In some cases, such as what's on the character sheet proper- it's something the designer has put forth to help focus play.  Stuff like in-character blogs, family trees, and anything else the group adds also plays this role, but isn't provided by the text- it's provided by group drift.

So, if we put aside both types of cues as being part of the "character sheet"(in the largest sense), it is interesting to note that some of the most important stuff in any game might still not be directly cued...

But- I believe the point of all the cues is to direct the group towards that final goal.  If we're looking at Dogs- there is no mechanical score o cues relating to "Judgement" or "What's right?" or anything like that, but the system and cues work together to produce play dealing with those issues.

So yeah, the important stuff might be completely unrecorded and uncued... but for consistantly hitting it, the stuff that is cued needs to aim towards it.

Chris

Well here's a maybe interesting thing to consider.

What if the character sheet (however broadly or narrowly understood) isn't a record, accounting or description of the character at all?

What if, instead, the character sheet is a description of your participation in the game? Like how a chess piece's shape doesn't tell you where it is on the board or its history of moves, it tells you how you can move it right now?

The purpose of mechanical character creation, then, would be the same as the purpose of setting up your pieces at the beginning of a chess game. It establishes your starting position in the game. Changes to your character sheet wouldn't, essentially, follow changes to your character; instead they'd essentially change your role, your strengths and weaknesses in the game, as a player. Like kinging a checker or queening a pawn.

-Vincent

Vincent,

I like that.  It also explains why, in many games, I didn't bother too much with the character sheet other than solely as the starting point.  Fiddling with the numbers and making it neat and pretty just doesn't do much for me.  

Our recent game of Nine Worlds has proved to me how valuable the character sheet can be--very much in line with what you just posted.  The character muses express my goals for future game play as well as how these goals intersect with the other players' goals.

Julie

Vincent,

Interesting. Under the broader definition of character sheet, I don't think I'd care for it (in that the broader definition is the ful representation of the character in written material), but if it were the narrow definition of character sheet (and part of the broader definition) then interesting. I think it would tend to force the game in a conciously game-y direction (a strong emphasis on what the player can do) as the chess analogy suggests (we don't care about what the rook is like, we care only about what we as players can do with it), but I don't think it would have to do that.

Of course, in a game where the only thing the player can do is act through the character, then this is actually what a D&Dish character sheet does. The player can affect the game world by having hir character cast magic missile. The player can effect the game world having hir character climb walls. The player has an X% chance of affecting the game world by hitting the monster.

A character sheet is like a chessboard when it can give you an idea of what the points of stress & tension & possibilities for development are. The bishop in peril is a bang taking place. A lonely pawn is an opening for adversity.  

Visually represented cues could help you better formulate what happens in the game, as well as letting you know what resources the player has access to. Sounds like thats what happend for Julie in 9Worlds. The relats map in Sorcerer & Polaris do this, they let you know what's at stake & what the relationships are among characters.  

Or, the resources that are recorded on the sheet, can point to what the player wants to (or ends up) exploring. Traits in Dogs represent resources the players can call on, and also tell you what they've committed to exploring via their character. Taking two d8s in a gun means they've committed that part of their ability to contribute to calling that gun into action.  

If we look at the character itself as a large order cue for what the player is interested in exploring, and the character sheet as their starting position for doing so in the game, then what Ron said about character, development & resources makes even more sense.

Quote from: RonLet's look instead at two other aspects of System: resolution and development. Resolution is "how stuff happens," and development is "how characters change." ...
Anyway, once you have resolution and development a little clearer in your mind, then you can see how character creation is really nothing but a starting point for those two processes in action.

But another huge issue underlying this is the fact that if the rules of a game don't allow or empower a player to make the resources they've chosen important to the game, then the player is beholden to the gm to do that for them. That is why the skills etc. in d&d don't function in the same way as traits in Dogs. Traits in Donjon, on the other hand do. Skills & stats in d&d are cues for the gm to follow up on, and as such may not be.  Another reason why cues on a sheet might "not get used" is because the player has no way of getting them involved in the game.

(Hi Charles!)

Quote from: BankueiA character sheet, a blog, the family trees in the character folders- all of these are cues to help remind the group about what matters in play.  In some cases, such as what's on the character sheet proper- it's something the designer has put forth to help focus play.  Stuff like in-character blogs, family trees, and anything else the group adds also plays this role, but isn't provided by the text- it's provided by group drift.

So, if we put aside both types of cues as being part of the "character sheet"(in the largest sense), it is interesting to note that some of the most important stuff in any game might still not be directly cued...

But- I believe the point of all the cues is to direct the group towards that final goal.

Ah.  You describe these as "cues" towards a "final goal".  I think this is what I was talking about when I used the term "microcosm" -- which was perhaps unclear.  I think a better analogy is the character sheet being a blueprint for play.  I think this depends on what you see play as being.  

So thinking of the sheet as a blueprint implies that the goal is spoken words during an active play session, and other parts of the game are cues towards the goal of what spoken words should be like.  (i.e. Only spoken words are "real".)  Thinking of the sheet as an element of play is that play is a larger work which includes written text as well as spoken words.  So the written part might mirror the spoken, but it also might serve as a contrast or foil to the spoken part of play.  

Actually, this is a part where I think Vincent's diagram is deceptive.  He shows imaginative content as a cloud, and arrows which point between the real people and the imaginative content.  

But really, any access to imagined content is either purely personal (i.e. only in one person's head) or represented through things in the real world (i.e. speech, text, gestures/expressions, tokens like dice or miniatures, etc.).  I think of it more like this:

So here the little word balloon is descriptive spoken words; the dice icon is dice, tokens, and rules-oriented spoken words; the cloud icon is collective imaginative content (i.e. Shared Imaginary Space).  No lines can go directly between the real people and the SIS.  The only way is through methods.  

This is important because of where it places rules.  In Vincent's formulation, rules are external (away on the right).  Thus, he shows Drama rules as going directly from person to imagination -- while Fortune rules cut to the right before wrapping back around to imagination.  In my diagram, Drama rules takes only the upper (word balloon) path to the SIS -- while Fortune takes the lower path as well.  

What does this mean in practice?  It makes explicit that rules are a part of the imaginative experience of the game.  The character sheet is not just a blueprint -- it is part of the building.  Rules and tokens like dice are themselves a part of the representation that goes on.  So, for example, a rule can have an effect on the game even if it is never actively invoked!!  The example of Farslayer's power is a strong case of this.  

Quote from: Andrew NorrisIs it all that different a style of play than what you're describing? No, not really. But for someone who's played in many games where nothing on the character sheet was referenced, other than the text boxes for "backstory" or "notes", it might be a considerable aid in having the rules actually aid play rather than be ignored.

I completely agree that the rules should aid play.  However, I'm noting that aiding play isn't the same as being a microcosm or blueprint for play.  For example, I suspect that having a bunch of 'useless' stat blocks could be used to good effect.  I'm picturing a game situation along the lines of "Kindergarten Cop" or "The Pacifier" -- where the PCs are combat-focused characters who become fish-out-of-water.  Then it might aid the game to have a character sheet with a bunch of combat stats even though combat is rare or absent.  The character's are struggling, finding that all their combat skills and abilities aren't useful.

Hey Charles!

Another thing to consider is that in every game you play, something has to serve the function I described. Otherwise, how would you know how to participate?

Thus I don't think that having such a character sheet leads at all to consciously game-y play. I mean, having unspoken social convention serve that function doesn't especially lead to consciously game-y play either.

John: You've pretty thoroughly misunderstood my little drawings. But that's okay; what I'm saying is that I agree with you, and my little drawings do too. If you'd like me to explain how my drawings and yours say the same thing, let me know; otherwise, I'm comfy going forward in this thread with just yours.

-Vincent

I was thinking about the relationship between the character and the character sheet just about three months ago, and I put it together in Game Ideas Unlimited: Character[/url] at Gaming Outpost (at present still a subscription site, but may be changing fairly soon).

Quote from: In that article, I...There is a degree to which what we call character generation is not the creation of the character; it is the creation of the character sheet.....

For anyone not familiar with the game or this character creation system, in Multiverser the player plays himself, or perhaps a game recreation of himself that is as accurate and complete as can be managed in transposing a real person to a fictional character....Real people are far more complicated than anyone imagines, though, and we worked our way to the point that a starting character paper was a major project. Of course, there are many games in which a starting character is a major project....Eventually, though, we realized that we were doing too much work up front.  Game play was better facilitated if we began by putting a very few important scores on paper and filling in the rest as game progressed.  Which scores are the important ones very much depends on the character....The trick is to identify which are the outstanding and important qualities of this character and get those on paper, allowing the more mundane and insignificant aspects to be added at such time as the game calls for them.

In that sense, it's pretty obvious that there's a big difference between creating the character and creating the character sheet. In Multiverser the character already exists, and has existed for years before anyone thought to bring him into the game....The character sheet, on the other hand, is a bare bones sketch of a few important aspects of this character. It gives a few fragments of character abilities in terms that permit them to integrate with the game mechanics. It cannot be more than that, really. Were it a hundred pages in small print, it would barely scratch the surface of all that this character is and does, his abilities, his drives, his beliefs. All it is is a quick reference document to keep a few fundamental character facts as matters of record, should they be needed in play.

The surprising thing, though, is that this is true of all character creation processes in all role playing games. The character is something rich and diverse, filled with motivations and history, relationships and anecdotes. The character paper is nothing more than a reference sheet for a few relevant statistics that are likely to be needed for resolving important moments in play, possibly with some color added to assist the player in getting into the mindset of this character.

We make the mistake of equating the two. Pass me my character, we say, as if there could possibly be adequate information in a file folder to fully define the persona we bring into the game world....As was suggested when we discussed Credibility, that piece of paper is an authority to which players can appeal for support in their proposed actions and results. The character exists in the shared imagined space, that is, in the minds of the participants in the game.

For some of us, this is an essential restructuring of the understanding of the character. The words and numbers on the sheet are not the character. They could not possibly be that, and so they never were. The character is that entity that lives and breathes in our imaginations; this piece of paper is a page from the hall of records, a birth certificate, a school transcript, an employee evaluation. Just as those documents, even collectively, cannot say who you are, so too the character sheet cannot tell us who the character is. It can only tell us a few important statistics about the character, which is not at all the same thing.

Of course, this becomes evident in a game like Multiverser, where the entire character creation process...involves imagining the character and putting the details on paper. This applies in many other games as well. Seth Ben-Ezra's Legends of Alyria...does much the same thing, having the players define who the character is and then create the stats on paper that describe that character. If you've created a character in your mind and then reduced it to notes on paper, it's blatantly evident that the notes on paper are a pale reflection of the character that has been created. These are only the chart at the foot of the bed; the patient is much more than what the chart reports.

Yet it is equally true of those games in which the statistics are developed through mechanical means, such as dice, and the character fleshed out by player choices and additional rolls. In this case, the real character creation occurs after the sheet has been constructed, as the player defines who this person is in revealing him in the shared imagined space. Just because we rolled up the scores doesn't mean we rolled up the character. We only defined a few key points, and left the rest up to our collective imaginations to devise. The character sheet in this case is the starting point; the character is about to be created from it.

Either way, the character sheet is not the character, but only a synopsis of the character. It is like the one paragraph biography of the author that appears on the flyleaf and tells you everything and nothing. Stop looking at that as if it were the character, and realize it's only the framework, the few critical points to which everyone has agreed. Start the game and watch the character create himself on the stage of the mind as play progresses.

I think that hits all the main points. In particular, I would emphasize that the character sheet is not more than an authority to support the credibility of those who would make statements about the character. Anything on the sheet which does not impact those statements in some way is not part of the character, because the character only exists as revealed in the shared imagined space. Most of what the character is will never be on the page.

--M. J. Young

The discussion of things on a character sheet that are not used being a detriment is all well and good if you're talking about stats or somesuch that are recorded but not used. That seems more of a design issue, since what stats and other info belong on a sheet is often clearly spelled out in the game manual. There is one obvious place it seems to fall down, though.

If I'm playing in a Sim scenario, or a scenario with any Sim leanings at all, then something that most of the time goes unnoticed on my character sheet might be very important in the right situation. The same can be said in many Gamist situations. IF, for example, there's a bit of gear my character owns and carries with him, such as a small knife, that is not commonly used, that can be overlooked most of the time. If, however, the character pulls a knife out of his pocket that a captor missed in a pat-down after taking the PC's main weapons, that's going to rile other players if there's nothing about the knife recorded anywhere.

This leads me to a question. Just what sorts of things should be left off of a character sheet and under what circumstances?

Quote from: groundhogThis leads me to a question. Just what sorts of things should be left off of a character sheet and under what circumstances?

And the answer is:

Exactly those things for which the player may require some authority to back his statement that such a thing is real within the shared imagined space.

The aforementioned knife needs to be supported by authority, because there's no particular reason to believe he has it under those circumstances.

On the other hand, there are a lot of games in which exactly that kind of question might be resolved otherwise.

As an example, when I run Multiverser with the on the fly character creation method, part of the system says that we're going to put down the most important information and add the details as we go. Let's suppose that no mention has been made of such a knife in such a game, and this scenario happens. The player could then say, "I've got a pocket knife; it's not on my sheet, but I would have taken it. Did he find that?" I could then roll a general effects roll, and based on how positive or negative the roll is, I could say whether the character had such a knife and whether the search took it--in that case, the authority being the die roll favoring the player.

Similarly, in Legends of Alyria, a player who won a confrontation could narrate the existence of the knife without objection, because the dice in that game tell us who wins and how strongly, without any reference to how it was done. The existence or non-existence of the knife is really irrelevant; if the player feels that it fits with his character and enhances the description, it's there; but since winning or losing is based on character numbers and dice without reference to equipment or skills, it's not important.

Barring some other means of establishing the authority for the existence or non-existence of the knife, it should be on the character sheet precisely because it needs authority to back up its existence in a situation in which the player's credibility to make the statement concerning the knife might be questioned.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young

Quote from: groundhogThis leads me to a question. Just what sorts of things should be left off of a character sheet and under what circumstances?

And the answer is:

Exactly those things for which the player may require some authority to back his statement that such a thing is real within the shared imagined space.

I think the answer here is going to vary.  Offhand, I am hard pressed to recall a time when a player has held up his character sheet for other people to read in order to back up some in-game statement.  (Note: I believe that it happens in other games, but it's not a part of my experience.)  Thus, I don't think of character sheets as primarily a supplier of social authority.  To my mind, the character sheet is primarily for that character's player -- not for the other players in the group.  

I think of things like maps, cards, or miniatures as tools for communication with other players.  Character sheets can be that, too, but I see them as more a focus / reminder / play-aid for the player.  So descriptive stuff which helps them get in-character (if that's desired) and play aids (like commonly-used charts) are good to go on a character sheet.

Quote from: lumpley
What if the character sheet (however broadly or narrowly understood) isn't a record, accounting or description of the character at all?

What if, instead, the character sheet is a description of your participation in the game? Like how a chess piece's shape doesn't tell you where it is on the board or its history of moves, it tells you how you can move it right now?

Agreed 100%.  In my prior formulations, the charsheet is in effect the board of the game, and IMO should be utilised more as a tool for controlling the course of play.  At present, the charsheet is record we are obliged to have, but which is only loosely related to the play of the game itself.  I think they should be more integrated.

I have also previously proposed the concept of "interface", and I think this is directly relevant too.  What struck me about charsheets is that *by comparison* with their CRPG equivalents they are often very badly designed.  Everything in the representation of your character in a CRPG is relevant to the actions you can do, will be expected to do, may choose to do.  All parts are functional, sometimes including the decorative bits, if they convey Colour.

RPG charsheets by contrast are not really seen as in and of the game; they facilitate the play of the game rather than being part of the game.  I think this approach needs to be challenged, and that more completely integrated, game-empowered, system-representing character sheets would qallow a ceertain increase in the sophistication of games.

Incidentally, the Click & Lock system used in Capes was I thought very good, although not a charsheet proper, as a tool for conveying its own rules-of-use I thought it was very succesful.