Musing on the Nature of Character in RPGs

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
@Ovinomancer My suggestion to players there is to maybe take some point form notes about possibilities in terms of backstory, some things that could be possible, and let it come into focus as you need to deploy it in play as per the rules. It's nice to have some ideas to riff off of when you have to have a character moment and not have to construct it from whole cloth on the spot every time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
@Ovinomancer My suggestion to players there is to maybe take some point form notes about possibilities in terms of backstory, some things that could be possible, and let it come into focus as you need to deploy it in play as per the rules. It's nice to have some ideas to riff off of when you have to have a character moment and not have to construct it from whole cloth on the spot every time.
Okay. 🤷
 

Yora

Legend
When I started to really work myself into the mysteries of classic 70s dungeon crawling, one thing that started to become clear about campaigns in which very fragile characters with minimal stats keep going into dungeons day in and out for the sake of exploring dungeons, is that you have to approach characters very differently than in contemporary D&D editions.

One thing that is frequently said is that character death in this type of game is not a big issue because the minimalistic stats with no skills and feats and only one spell at first level means new characters can be done in five minutes. What this really means is that characters are replaceable. You use them until they break and then replace them.
This goes together with a quite different understanding of story. The story in such a game is not a retelling of a character's life with all the ambitions, turns, payoffs, and resolutions, but rather the antics, stunts, and shenanigans that happen from scene to scene. Story is not about specific characters pursuing goals over months or years and their relationships. It's the problem solving in the moment.

I believe Darkest Dungeon is not a bad comparison for how the relationships between players and characters works. In Darkest Dungeon, you control a roster of 10 to 20 adventurers that inevitably get worn out by the ordeal, and the key to making progress is to not waste time and resources on trying to bering every character back to fighting shape, but to kick most of them back out into the cold and replace them with new recruits, whose job is to make the money needed to pay for the required treatment of your elite veterans. And inevitably you will get very much attached to some of the long running members of your crew, which you remember getting knocked out four times in a fight but coming back against all odds and helping the party to victory, and then later being the only survivor against a boss who killed the entire rest of that team. These characters have no existence outside of the dungeon crawl and do nothing but fight. But they also develop excentricities, like refusing to do certain actions, being particularly vulnerable or resistant against specific horror, and so on, which gives them the appearance of individual personality, even though the game has no dialogs.
And in the end, they still will get ripped apart by some fiendish abomination and replaced by a new green recruit. You know it, and you learn to live with it.
 

Helpful NPC Thom

Adventurer
Inside me, there are two wolves.
  • The first: give me a fleshed-out background prior to gameplay so I can shape my character fully.
  • The second: nobody cares, give me a character and what happens in the game is all that matters.
If the first wolf is to be fed, he needs to know lots of setting details and needs work with players and GM to craft his background.

If the second wolf is to be fed, roll 3d6 down the line and let's go.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
So after reading The Between and finding a lot of its elements to be really interesting in regard to the way that flashback scenes work and how that interacts with the other game elements, the next RPG that I read was Heart. It also does some really interesting things with character.

Each PC in the game is a delver....which means they go on expeditions into The Heart, which is a kind of tear in reality. They go exploring in the strange locaitons contained within, and it's a kind of living dungeon. The Heart has a will and it tries to give people what they want, but its understanding of people is really questionable, so it screws up all the time. So this means that each delve into the Heart can be quite an experience, with physical laws and fundamental forces becoming less meaningful the further you delve into the Heart.

Each PC will choose a Calling. There are several to choose from, and each one is the reason that the PC has become a delver. They are: Adventure, Enlightenment, Forced, Heartsong, and Penitent. They remind me a bit of 5e's Backgrounds, but they ultimately do much more as a game element.

Each one grants a Core Ability, has a list of questions for the player to answer, and then a list of Beats. I'll use The Forced as an example.

**************
Forced
You don't want to be down here, but you don't have any choice. You're a prisoner, an initiate to a cult, or someone's blackmailing you.

Core Ability:
Collateral: You have a knack for getting behind someone else when things kick off. Once per session, allocate Stress to the nearest friendly target (PC or NPC) instead of marking it yourself.​
When you create your character, answer these questions:
  • Who, or what, are your masters?
  • What do your masters want?
  • How are your masters maintaining power over you?
  • How do your masters contact you?
  • Choose another player character. They have history with your masters, too. What's their relationship?
**************
I really like the feel that this all has. The game has a specific agenda in the sense that the PCs are all delvers. This gives you a strong sense of why. I like the connection created by the last question, and how one player can determine that fact about another player's character. And Calling isn't connected to class, it's a separate thing. The questions create a situation, but leave a lot of the specifics open (this kind of reminds me of The Between and how they do character history through Flashback scenes @Ovinomancer ).

Where the Calling really shines, I think, is that each one has a list of Beats, divided into Minor, Major, or Zenith Beats. Beats are goals that you set for your PC to achieve in play. You select 2 at the end of any session, or before the first session, letting your GM know what you're working toward and what you're interested in seeing in play. Each Calling has about 20 Minor Beats, about 10 Major Beats, and 2 Zenith Beats. When you hit a Beat, you cross it off; each one can only be hit once. When you hit a Beat, you get an Advance, which is like a new ability or an improvement of an existing one.

The Minor Beats are pretty simple and straightforward, and likely will take only one session to hit, the Major Beats are more involved and may take a couple of sessions, and the Zenith Beats are pretty much the culmination of the PCs story. Zenith Beats grant a Zenith Advance which is like a one time ability of incredible scope, but also serves as an end to the PC's story (they die or retire or vanish or similar).

It's a really interesting way to establish character. It reminded me of the Between in some ways, but also XP Triggers from Blades and other PbtA games.
 

pemerton

Legend
Each PC will choose a Calling. There are several to choose from, and each one is the reason that the PC has become a delver. They are: Adventure, Enlightenment, Forced, Heartsong, and Penitent. They remind me a bit of 5e's Backgrounds, but they ultimately do much more as a game element.

Each one grants a Core Ability, has a list of questions for the player to answer, and then a list of Beats. I'll use The Forced as an example.
This reminded me of the playbooks in Orbital, a no-dice, no-masters PbtA variant that I played earlier this year. The PC Gen is very rich, because you have to fill in those sorts of questions, including interlocking questions, about your character.

Where the Calling really shines, I think, is that each one has a list of Beats, divided into Minor, Major, or Zenith Beats. Beats are goals that you set for your PC to achieve in play. You select 2 at the end of any session, or before the first session, letting your GM know what you're working toward and what you're interested in seeing in play. Each Calling has about 20 Minor Beats, about 10 Major Beats, and 2 Zenith Beats. When you hit a Beat, you cross it off; each one can only be hit once. When you hit a Beat, you get an Advance, which is like a new ability or an improvement of an existing one.

The Minor Beats are pretty simple and straightforward, and likely will take only one session to hit, the Major Beats are more involved and may take a couple of sessions, and the Zenith Beats are pretty much the culmination of the PCs story. Zenith Beats grant a Zenith Advance which is like a one time ability of incredible scope, but also serves as an end to the PC's story (they die or retire or vanish or similar).
This reminds me of Milestones in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic: you get 1, 3 or 10 XP with a cap of once per action, once per session, once and then the Milestone is completed and you probably need a new one. You can see some LotR-ish examples in my PC write-ups here.
 


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
@Ovinomancer, interesting OP.

As you probably know I incline towards motivation over characterisation. I wonder how I would handle The Between!
I'm a fan of motivation as well. I think in the two examples, the Blades one is very clear on that motivation. So clear, that there's little characterization (used here to describe the physical appearance, speech. and mannerisms). The Between doesn't really give strong motivation outside the premise of play -- you are a Hunter in London as part of Hargrove House, there to hunt down supernatural threats. Some playbooks have some other motivations, but they vary greatly in scope and weight. So, less motivation present. On the other hand, the playbooks are literally built from tropes from gothic horror and media like Penny Dreadful and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (@hawkeyefan forgive me). So there's a mass of characterization that's readily available for these playbooks.

Now, that said, I personally don't mind noodling about with some characterization for a bit until motivations lock in. They're already doing so with Rattlesnake after one session -- Rattlesnake wants to hunt the supernatural because, as he sees it, it disrupts those natural good humors of mankind and leads into darkness. He comes from this from his own curse and that he believes himself to be a good enough person. Of course, this setting is dark, and unpleasant, and Rattlesnake clearly has a history of violence (his playbook moves tell me so), so I see this as absolutely ripe for testing. And the system being PbtA means that there will be ample opportunity for that testing.
 

One bit to add to The Between is the following:

* Like DW, there are premise based questions (xp triggers) that serve to give shape to PC motivations.

* Like DW, there are archetype-specific questions (xp triggers) that serve to give shape to PC motivations. For instance, the American might tell tales of their times in the states during a vulnerable or intimate moment (like telling Edward of his courage and giving him the bullet), might turn feral during a passionate encounter, might resort to violence, might encourage folks to let loose (like Rattlesnake did with the very formal Constable).

* Then there is the history revealed as an emergent property of play which will firm up and/or change PC conception.
 
Last edited:

@Ovinomancer

This is one of the Keeper's Principles in The Beyond:


KEEP THE DAYTIME CASUAL: In other words, let the daytime scenes unfurl at their own pace; let them breathe. They should feel unhurried and, importantly, safe. This doesn’t mean they have to be safe—sudden danger in the day can lead to great storytelling—but they should at least feel safe.

(because I'm typically quite aggressive in my framing and pace) This is one I was really focusing on trying to accomplish in our opening foray. I wanted your scenes and Helena's scenes to feel languid, safe, but with the prospect of danger looming just beyond eyeshot; lurking but out of sight.

So a few questions:

1) Did you feel this in your scene at the police precinct? If so, how did that orient you toward Rattlesnake and to the scene at large?

2) If you would have failed your Information move (rather than the 7-9 that you got that gained you the doll Clue but put it on you to make it useful), I would have likely responded with a combo of the Keeper Move "Have an Official Show Up (to interfere)" and "Put the Hunter in Danger" (the Constable was an official). I would have escalated and brought your pistol into it (some kind of local ordinance against open carry).

Would you (as Rattlesnake) have let the Constable disarm you or would you have escalated the situation? Why or why not (what would have been your thinking/orientation to the evolved situation) and what would that have said about Rattlesnake and your subsequent play of him?
 

Remove ads

Top