Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deuce Traveler I purchased this a few weeks ago, and finished it last Wednesday. I very much enjoyed it, although I would have liked it even more if the other male character who liked to overdo it on roleplaying was as dysfunctional as the Lady, the Sleeper, the Jester, or the Warrior. He actually wasn't all that bad of a player in my opinion. Otherwise, I felt it was really well done. Especially with the constant frustration of the DM.  |
Well firstly, it's really good to hear that you enjoyed it. It's what makes it all worthwhile - especially for this fragile-ego author!
As to the characters, it's always interesting to hear what people think of them. I didn't set out to make any better or worse than any others as such. Instead each represents a typical gaming archetype - with the possible exception of the Lady, who is more representative of the fact that women are underepresented in gaming, and thus tend to be identified (by the men) in terms of their gender.
But broadly what I was going for was:
* The Warrior: Power-crazed munchkin who wants to use the game to dominate the other players.
* The Jester: Guy who will never pass up the chance to make a joke, no matter how disruptive it might be to the game's reality and flow.
* The Dealer: Method roleplayer who puts faithfully roleplaying his character above everthing - including some "minor details" as the game's plot actually working.
* The Sleeper: Guy who has no interest in the game, and is only there to spend time with his friends.
* The Lady: Put upon lone woman who ends up reacting to the other players' attitudes towards her.
Now two questions I'm often asked are: "Are they based on people you know?" and "Which one is you?", the answers to which are no and neither, for the same reason. They're not based on anyone (including me) that I know. Instead, they're based on behaviours that people I know (and me) have exhibited.
I'm often the jester. I once said that if you're wanting to GM a game of Star Trek and you make the mistake of letting me play, you need to be aware that I will inevitably turn it into GalaxyQuest. (To be fair, if you're playing your captain very much in the James T Kirk as played by William Shatner mold, this is almost inevitable).
I'm sometimes the Sleeper, especially if it's a genre or story that doesn't grab me. I've had many, "Huh? What? Do you want me to roll?" moments.
And I'm very often the Dealer. I once bought what was supposed to be a dungeon, cash and magic heavy campaign to a grinding halt by creating a hippy ranger whose only motivation was to protect the forests. (Yes. Yes I was asking what my motivation was for going down a hole in the ground and slaughtering monsters.)
Which gets back to the theme of your post. All of the archetypes can be very distructive to play. In many ways there's nothing worse than a method roleplayer looking for a motivation, for whilst the jokester can just hold his tongue for a moment, and the munchkin can just go for a draw this once, a method roleplaying portrayal, once compromised, is compromised forever.
Of my characters, I think that the Dealer is the best roleplayer, but the Lady is the best player. By that, I mean that the Dealer's character is the best portrayed, but that the Lady is the player who's producing the happiest and most harmonious game for all participants.
But I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me, and if they did, I'd consider that a failure on my part. There aren't supposed to be good and bad guys. They're supposed to be different, and different people should judge them differently according to their opinions of good and bad play. A friend of mine said he sympathised with the Warrior, on the grounds that he's just trying to play the game in the way that he enjoys, and the others keep on picking on him.
I'm not quite sure I'd agree personally, but as the writer I'm very glad that he saw that in the character.
Gamers Online Now: 1,363
Linear Mode
