D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Xetheral]

I guess I can see that -- it's not at all what I took from his post. To me, he was pointing out that even when everything is handed to you in a controlled and foreseeable way, understanding the character is not easy. In an improv environment, understanding character isn't any easier just because you have no idea what's going to happen next.

I wouldn't say that at all, unless we're reducing Bob the Bartender to a cardboard cutout who only says, "mmhmm," and "wotcher havin'." Bob as a complex character isn't any easier to grasp fully, we're just pretending we do that when we pretend to do that.

That's fair. Thanks for explaining your viewpoint!

From my standpoint it's easier to understand a character if you are simultaneously creating that character (or significantly adding to that character), but I can understand why you disagree.

 

[Scott Christian]

I can mess up just two or three lines without any difficulty at all.

Far better in that case to just tell me what point you want the (one assumes minor) character to get across and let me make the actual words up myself.

Probably not, unless the lines held key words in them e.g. a word I use is some clue to solving a mystery. But otherwise my performance is likely to be more stilted if I'm concentrating on getting the scripted lines right. (if there was a teleprompter it'd probably be different, but I've never had the luxury of one of those)

Thanks for explaining.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's fair. Thanks for explaining your viewpoint!

From my standpoint it's easier to understand a character if you are simultaneously creating that character (or significantly adding to that character), but I can understand why you disagree.

Not to put a fine point on it, but I'm not sure it's actually understanding that's happening. I just invented Bob the Bartender, and I just made up that Bob mostly says "mmhmm" and "wotcher havin'." I don't have any more understanding of this character by having done that.

In other words, if I can force a character to do whatever I want and then spend time on the backside justifying the action, do I actually understand this character, or have I just done a bit of authoring where I was largely free of constraints for having to reconcile with established bits and said that it's improved my understanding of this character?

 

[Xetheral]

Not to put a fine point on it, but I'm not sure it's actually understanding that's happening. I just invented Bob the Bartender, and I just made up that Bob mostly says "mmhmm" and "wotcher havin'." I don't have any more understanding of this character by having done that.

In other words, if I can force a character to do whatever I want and then spend time on the backside justifying the action, do I actually understand this character, or have I just done a bit of authoring where I was largely free of constraints for having to reconcile with established bits and said that it's improved my understanding of this character?

As I see it, at the point where you've made up Bob the Bartender and decided on some mannerisms you haven't yet reached the point of having to make an IC decision for Bob. When that point comes (presumably in response to something the PCs do, or in response to a follow-on consequence of what the PCs do) you'll need to decide what Bob does next. Assuming you approach the decision from an IC standpoint, you'll need to establish a reason for Bob to act the way he does, and then act on that reason. I think it's pretty easy at that point to say that you as the GM understand the reason that Bob made that choice, considering you just came up with it.

Sure, you still don't understand Bob as a fully developed character because Bob still isn't a fully developed character. But you necessarily understand him well enough to know why he acted the way he did.

Tying this back to my original point--understanding human interaction well enough to author a reason for Bob to act, and then acting on that reason isn't a particularly difficult task, even when done on the fly. I'm arguing that doing so is much easier (even when dealing with a more complex character than Bob) than trying to express an established character on stage in front of an audience, which is a particularly difficult task. (Although I understand you interpret @Campbell differently, and so disagree that my overall point is responsive to what they wrote. I'm clarifying the tie-back only to keep the original context front and center, not to try to reopen the disagreement over what @Campbell meant.)

 

[Blue]

Here's my post back from page 3:

And here's a post I made yesterday:

I haven't changed my mind in relation to either of these posts. Which one are you objecting to?

The one I have been objecting to the entire time. That you can not conflate character goals and player goals as a single thing.

That this point it seems to me that you are both agreeing strongly when you said...

The fact that there are different approaches to RPGing has been known at least since the late 70s (because I have White Dwarf articles from that time discussing the different approaches). I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a poster on these boards who more consistently acknowledges that fact than me.

...while at the same time doubling down on that character goals and player goals are the same thing in your most recent post.

I don't have a place to go from here when you agree that what I'm saying is correct and "known since the late 70s" yet insist on a statement that can not be true if that's the case.

 

[Campbell]

I can not speak for @pemerton , but it's quite possible for the players' goal to be completing the adventure. It's true that player goals and character goals do not need to align, but that does not mean have fun is a meaningful exhortation from my perspective (in any context). Having fun or enjoying something is an emotional response. It's not something we can meaningfully strive for, especially in a shared context where hopefully we have at least some unity of purpose as players.

I enjoy a lot of different things. There are a whole host of things I find fun. I just need to know which I'm supposed to be aiming for when we sit down to play. Of course you should be enjoying the process of play whether you achieve your goals or not, but that does not mean you should not be striving for something.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I see it, at the point where you've made up Bob the Bartender and decided on some mannerisms you haven't yet reached the point of having to make an IC decision for Bob. When that point comes (presumably in response to something the PCs do, or in response to a follow-on consequence of what the PCs do) you'll need to decide what Bob does next. Assuming you approach the decision from an IC standpoint, you'll need to establish a reason for Bob to act the way he does, and then act on that reason. I think it's pretty easy at that point to say that you as the GM understand the reason that Bob made that choice, considering you just came up with it.

And this is my point -- authoring Bob on the fly is not understanding the character any more than writing down a few BIFTs before play is understanding the character. These are the exact things that get pointed to as weak characterizations and cardboard play. I mean, I can say that Bob says "mmhmm" when a character asks him something because he's distracted thinking about the body in the cellar than he has to move, and that's fun, but I don't understand this character better -- why is there a body, did Bob do something, is Bob under pressure from some other person, does Bob hate or love the dead person or are they a stranger, is Bob a simpleton who can't really think of more than one thing at a time, is Bob.... and on and on. The point is, at the moment I'm making the choice for Bob to respond to a character's action, I do not understand any of this. I'm making a blind choice and then, probably, inventing things to justify it later.

Sure, you still don't understand Bob as a fully developed character because Bob still isn't a fully developed character. But you necessarily understand him well enough to know why he acted the way he did.

I don't need to, though, I can do whatever I'd like and then justify it. This is the opposite of understanding the character.

Tying this back to my original point--understanding human interaction well enough to author a reason for Bob to act, and then acting on that reason isn't a particularly difficult task, even when done on the fly. I'm arguing that doing so is much easier (even when dealing with a more complex character than Bob) than trying to express an established character on stage in front of an audience, which is a particularly difficult task. (Although I understand you interpret @Campbell differently, and so disagree that my overall point is responsive to what they wrote. I'm clarifying the tie-back only to keep the original context front and center, not to try to reopen the disagreement over what @Campbell meant.)

I don't. Let's take Bob, who is undetailed. The PCs approach and try to convince them to aid him. How do we decide this? We have nothing, so really we're only making this decision based on how we, the GM, feel this scene needs to play -- is Bob going to be difficult to extend the scene, is he just going to say yes because we think this is unimportant, or is he just going to say no because we think this is too easy and have a plan for the next bartender to be the helpful one? Whatever we decide, it will not, in any way, be about what Bob thinks, or understanding him as a character. So, we're actually making a choice that has to be biased by our feelings on the play and not about Bob. A mechanic here could remove that bias, and will not increase the arbitrariness of the result. The mechanic says, and then we're in the exact same spot -- justifying the choice by authoring more about Bob.

 

[Xetheral]

And this is my point -- authoring Bob on the fly is not understanding the character any more than writing down a few BIFTs before play is understanding the character. These are the exact things that get pointed to as weak characterizations and cardboard play. I mean, I can say that Bob says "mmhmm" when a character asks him something because he's distracted thinking about the body in the cellar than he has to move, and that's fun, but I don't understand this character better -- why is there a body, did Bob do something, is Bob under pressure from some other person, does Bob hate or love the dead person or are they a stranger, is Bob a simpleton who can't really think of more than one thing at a time, is Bob.... and on and on. The point is, at the moment I'm making the choice for Bob to respond to a character's action, I do not understand any of this. I'm making a blind choice and then, probably, inventing things to justify it later.

I don't need to, though, I can do whatever I'd like and then justify it. This is the opposite of understanding the character.

I don't. Let's take Bob, who is undetailed. The PCs approach and try to convince them to aid him. How do we decide this? We have nothing, so really we're only making this decision based on how we, the GM, feel this scene needs to play -- is Bob going to be difficult to extend the scene, is he just going to say yes because we think this is unimportant, or is he just going to say no because we think this is too easy and have a plan for the next bartender to be the helpful one? Whatever we decide, it will not, in any way, be about what Bob thinks, or understanding him as a character. So, we're actually making a choice that has to be biased by our feelings on the play and not about Bob. A mechanic here could remove that bias, and will not increase the arbitrariness of the result. The mechanic says, and then we're in the exact same spot -- justifying the choice by authoring more about Bob.

I think we are each meaning fundamentally different things by the phrase "understanding the character". But that disagreement is unrelated to my original point that making IC decisions for an NPC on the fly is easier than portraying an established character on a stage for an audience.

I stand by my point regardless of whether we interpret the phrase "understanding the character" in a way where it is an intrinsic part of making IC decisions for an NPC or whether we instead interpret it in a way where it is impossible with the limited development practical for most NPCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we are each meaning fundamentally different things by the phrase "understanding the character". But that disagreement is unrelated to my original point that making IC decisions for an NPC on the fly is easier than portraying an established character on a stage for an audience.

I stand by my point regardless of whether we interpret the phrase "understanding the character" in a way where it is an intrinsic part of making IC decisions for an NPC or whether we instead interpret it in a way where it is impossible with the limited development practical for most NPCs.

Sorry, I thinking the discussion as a whole is about how much we actually are engaged with the character's wants and desires when we make choices for them, and that this fit into this conception. I'm not arguing that you need to understand the character -- I don't, and it works just fine. But in the context that improv allows to you better understand the character's wants, desires, and drives and thereby provide a more "pure" representation of this character due to this easier ability to understand these, I'm not seeing it at all, for the reasons I post above.

So, curiously, if you do not mean understanding the character's wants, drives, and desires and how those direct actions, what do you mean by "understanding the character?"

 

[Campbell]

The context I wanted to provide is that having a script to work off of and time to do research/prepare for the role makes it much easier to have a meaningful understand of who the character is, what they want, etc. That given all resources they have available professional actors still often feel they could have done things much better after the fact.

For me those formative stages where I am in initial stages of creating/discovering the role or in an RPG doing the initial authorship for a character are much harder and more invigorating, but like difficult stuff. We're talking about a whole person with a life, relationships, goals, etc. Making decisions while in these initial stages if I'm taking the character seriously is really tough stuff because I am still trying to get a sense for who they might be.