Nugan
First Post
I posted this topic on Dykal several months ago, and it lead to an interesting discussion, so I thought it might be worthwhile to post it here as well. (It might be best to ignore the first paragraph, as it makes little sense out of context, I couldn't figure out how to remove it without rewording the thread.)
Anyway, here's the thread:
After evaluating the unrestrained, scattershot rant I made a few days ago in Turonik's thread about renovating the DET, which—like most rants—contained ideas that I had long been incubating but had not really organized prior to writing, I came to the conclusion that I was really discussing two different topics. One of those topics, the questionable legitimacy of most conventional settings, really had more to do with fantasy as a genre than with role-playing in and of itself. I'm planning on making a tread on that topic eventually, but I won't discuss it here.
The other idea did relate more directly to role-playing. In essence, I was asking (and groping to answer, if poorly) a question that is often alluded to but rarely directly discussed in conversations about freeform role-playing, which is: What standard (or standards) should be used to judge quality in the realm of freeform role-playing? Or, to be needlessly techincal: What constitues the standards of role-playing aesthetics?
Most FFRPers have some internal unarticulated standard for judging quality. Unfortunately, since this topic is rarely discussed, these standards are often simplistic and not subject to reflection and adjustment (this is as true of my standards as those of anyone else).
Often, we judge role-playing quality by the same standards that a high school english teacher would judge the quality of a student essay: Is this player using proper grammar? Proper spelling? Are they clear? Do they say what they are trying to say without butchering the english language? There usually isn't anything innately wrong with this method, but it's very limited. One doesn't review novels or poems or stories or any other literary art form (and, yes, I do think that FFRPing is an art form) by such anemic standards. It provides no basis to explore nuance and complexity. Also, it may be counter-productive at times, such as when a character is speaking in a dialect or in purposfully poor english for effect.
There is another set of implicit standards often used that I think is more misguided than the first. This is the set of standards derived from carrying the standards of a game (particularly table-top dice role-playing) over to the art form of freeform role-playing. This is how ideas like power-gaming, obediance to setting rules, prowess in combat, and strategy have become part of the aesthetic judgements made about freeform RPing. The results of these judgements are not neccessarily incorrect (for example, power gaming characters are almost without exception of below average quality), but they are based on the faulty assumptions of a game-bound mindset and can cause poor quality judgements. For example, prowess in combat is a good thing in a tabletop DND game where it allows you to win more effectively, but in a freeform role-playing situation, a battle lost with nuance and style is often far better than a battle won with cold strategy (even if the battle is fought fairly). One needs to escape the formal, strategy-oriented, rules-bound mindset of a game before they can enter the more fluid, style-based perspective of art.
So, what do I recommend as an alternative theory of role-playing aesthetics?
I'm promoting something that I'm going to call "character based aesthetics."
The character is the central medium of any freeform role-playing experience. Unlike other artforms, there is no single author or creator of any role-playing experience, thus all other stylistic devices, such as plot and atmosphere, must be channeled completely through the player's character or characters. Nothing in a FFRP can existence independent of a character, since there is no DM or universal author to provide such external factors.
Thus, the ultimate judgement of one's skill as a role-player must be of one's skill at creating characters. Even the best of plots and the most brilliant atmospheric touches will seem arbitrary and false if they are not effectively challenged through the personality of an effective character.
So, whay makes for an effective character?
An effective character possesses a complete, stylistically interesting, and knowable* personality.
Character effectiveness is not derived from what powers a characer possesses or how completely a character mimicks some preconconcieved idea of what, for example, an elf or a vampire should be. Focusing on what a character can do or is, while neglecting what a character percieves and how a character expresses itself can be crippling. In fact, such a mix up of priorities is probably the single largest mistake that I have seen made frequently by veteran players. The attributes of your character communicate only what they are and they do so without provoking any more interest than a dry textbook, while the personality of your character always communicates more than what is explicitly stated and is always far more interesting.
A good personality does not have to be complex (although one's ability to sustain the interest of others in a character will often be based upon how carefully nuanced a character is), but it must be interesting. Quirks and flaws are mandatory, because they add depth and vulernability. A unique communication style is also benefical, because dialogue will often be your character's primary form of communication (since nonverbal communication can be extremely difficult in written RPs) and dialogue provides your best opportunity for catching and holding he interests of others. A consistent, practiced tone and outlook for your character is also helpful, since they will ground your character and create boundaries for your character's personality that will create a sense of percieved consistency and symetry in those with which the character interacts. There are certainly other possible methods as well, but those are the suggestions that immediately come to mind.
Well, those are my thoughts on the issue. What do you think?
* When I say "knowable," I do not mean translucent or lacking in mystery. I simply mean that other players should feel that they "know" and can percieve the uniqueness of the character's personality after interacting with it.
Anyway, here's the thread:
After evaluating the unrestrained, scattershot rant I made a few days ago in Turonik's thread about renovating the DET, which—like most rants—contained ideas that I had long been incubating but had not really organized prior to writing, I came to the conclusion that I was really discussing two different topics. One of those topics, the questionable legitimacy of most conventional settings, really had more to do with fantasy as a genre than with role-playing in and of itself. I'm planning on making a tread on that topic eventually, but I won't discuss it here.
The other idea did relate more directly to role-playing. In essence, I was asking (and groping to answer, if poorly) a question that is often alluded to but rarely directly discussed in conversations about freeform role-playing, which is: What standard (or standards) should be used to judge quality in the realm of freeform role-playing? Or, to be needlessly techincal: What constitues the standards of role-playing aesthetics?
Most FFRPers have some internal unarticulated standard for judging quality. Unfortunately, since this topic is rarely discussed, these standards are often simplistic and not subject to reflection and adjustment (this is as true of my standards as those of anyone else).
Often, we judge role-playing quality by the same standards that a high school english teacher would judge the quality of a student essay: Is this player using proper grammar? Proper spelling? Are they clear? Do they say what they are trying to say without butchering the english language? There usually isn't anything innately wrong with this method, but it's very limited. One doesn't review novels or poems or stories or any other literary art form (and, yes, I do think that FFRPing is an art form) by such anemic standards. It provides no basis to explore nuance and complexity. Also, it may be counter-productive at times, such as when a character is speaking in a dialect or in purposfully poor english for effect.
There is another set of implicit standards often used that I think is more misguided than the first. This is the set of standards derived from carrying the standards of a game (particularly table-top dice role-playing) over to the art form of freeform role-playing. This is how ideas like power-gaming, obediance to setting rules, prowess in combat, and strategy have become part of the aesthetic judgements made about freeform RPing. The results of these judgements are not neccessarily incorrect (for example, power gaming characters are almost without exception of below average quality), but they are based on the faulty assumptions of a game-bound mindset and can cause poor quality judgements. For example, prowess in combat is a good thing in a tabletop DND game where it allows you to win more effectively, but in a freeform role-playing situation, a battle lost with nuance and style is often far better than a battle won with cold strategy (even if the battle is fought fairly). One needs to escape the formal, strategy-oriented, rules-bound mindset of a game before they can enter the more fluid, style-based perspective of art.
So, what do I recommend as an alternative theory of role-playing aesthetics?
I'm promoting something that I'm going to call "character based aesthetics."
The character is the central medium of any freeform role-playing experience. Unlike other artforms, there is no single author or creator of any role-playing experience, thus all other stylistic devices, such as plot and atmosphere, must be channeled completely through the player's character or characters. Nothing in a FFRP can existence independent of a character, since there is no DM or universal author to provide such external factors.
Thus, the ultimate judgement of one's skill as a role-player must be of one's skill at creating characters. Even the best of plots and the most brilliant atmospheric touches will seem arbitrary and false if they are not effectively challenged through the personality of an effective character.
So, whay makes for an effective character?
An effective character possesses a complete, stylistically interesting, and knowable* personality.
Character effectiveness is not derived from what powers a characer possesses or how completely a character mimicks some preconconcieved idea of what, for example, an elf or a vampire should be. Focusing on what a character can do or is, while neglecting what a character percieves and how a character expresses itself can be crippling. In fact, such a mix up of priorities is probably the single largest mistake that I have seen made frequently by veteran players. The attributes of your character communicate only what they are and they do so without provoking any more interest than a dry textbook, while the personality of your character always communicates more than what is explicitly stated and is always far more interesting.
A good personality does not have to be complex (although one's ability to sustain the interest of others in a character will often be based upon how carefully nuanced a character is), but it must be interesting. Quirks and flaws are mandatory, because they add depth and vulernability. A unique communication style is also benefical, because dialogue will often be your character's primary form of communication (since nonverbal communication can be extremely difficult in written RPs) and dialogue provides your best opportunity for catching and holding he interests of others. A consistent, practiced tone and outlook for your character is also helpful, since they will ground your character and create boundaries for your character's personality that will create a sense of percieved consistency and symetry in those with which the character interacts. There are certainly other possible methods as well, but those are the suggestions that immediately come to mind.
Well, those are my thoughts on the issue. What do you think?
* When I say "knowable," I do not mean translucent or lacking in mystery. I simply mean that other players should feel that they "know" and can percieve the uniqueness of the character's personality after interacting with it.
