Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Campbell]

I'm a little late to the party, but there were a couple things I wanted to touch on.

I don't really see a meaningful difference between exploration of character (in the narrative sense) and story. As far as I'm concerned exploration of characters and how they relate to one another is the heart of narrative. To put it in more perspective I've always been a much bigger fan of Clarement's X-Men than the Avengers. I see the initial conflict that exists between characters at the initial stage of game play to be important because it leads to them feeling much more like a team as they gel and start to value one another.

I can be a bit too strident of advocate for the play style I enjoy. When firing on all cylinders I tend to unleash the fire hose of adversity on my own characters because I enjoy heroic, but deeply flawed characters. In the game of Scion I'm playing in now my character, Reinhardt has a deep and abiding desire to please his father (Baldur). He is relentless in pursuit of being big damn hero, but routinely fails to consider the human cost of his actions. As we are approaching demigod-hood in game Reinhardt is slowly coming to terms with the fact that he is personally responsible for the deaths of countless mortals who have fallen to his fists. Being an in person game though I'm much more apt to see when I'm pushing too hard because I actually get to see real time reactions of my fellow players.

I think our game did a wonderful job of showing the strengths and weaknesses of Story Now game play. Actual play definitely took on a life of its own, results were unexpected, etc. At the same time results were unexpected, passions ran high, and the conflict between characters was more palpable than some people would prefer. It's the essence of good play to me, but I'm adult enough to realize that my tastes are not even close to being universal. It's definitely not ideal for all groups, in much the same way that some of my friends cannot play Diplomacy with one another.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm a little late to the party, but there were a couple things I wanted to touch on.

I don't really see a meaningful difference between exploration of character (in the narrative sense) and story. As far as I'm concerned exploration of characters and how they relate to one another is the heart of narrative. To put it in more perspective I've always been a much bigger fan of Clarement's X-Men than the Avengers. I see the initial conflict that exists between characters at the initial stage of game play to be important because it leads to them feeling much more like a team as they gel and start to value one another.

I can be a bit too strident of advocate for the play style I enjoy. When firing on all cylinders I tend to unleash the fire hose of adversity on my own characters because I enjoy heroic, but deeply flawed characters. In the game of Scion I'm playing in now my character, Reinhardt has a deep and abiding desire to please his father (Baldur). He is relentless in pursuit of being big damn hero, but routinely fails to consider the human cost of his actions. As we are approaching demigod-hood in game Reinhardt is slowly coming to terms with the fact that he is personally responsible for the deaths of countless mortals who have fallen to his fists. Being an in person game though I'm much more apt to see when I'm pushing too hard because I actually get to see real time reactions of my fellow players.

I think our game did a wonderful job of showing the strengths and weaknesses of Story Now game play. Actual play definitely took on a life of its own, results were unexpected, etc. At the same time results were unexpected, passions ran high, and the conflict between characters was more palpable than some people would prefer. It's the essence of good play to me, but I'm adult enough to realize that my tastes are not even close to being universal. It's definitely not ideal for all groups, in much the same way that some of my friends cannot play Diplomacy with one another.

I think the overall chemistry would have been much more cohesive if it would have been a full-on campaign started at level 1 where the specific themes to be explored and the various characters' quests would have been able to be calibrated. Its clear that there is certainly some "theme dissonance" going on, I think that could easily be smoothed over to a shared signal with proper communication and homogenization.

I've GMed for all types (including the various member profiles that we had for the PBP). As long as folks are mature and cooperative (which all 4 of you are of course) it can be made to work. If everyone knew what was going to be stridently advocated for at the outset, it would have been pretty seamless I suspect. I mean, I certainly feel that I knew where things would potentially go (and it went there basically) given your backgrounds and the character profiles/backgrounds you were representing.

As an aside, if at some point in the future you decide that you want to pursue the scenario further to see where Lucann's tale goes, let me know. I can easily fire it back up.

 

[N'raac]

I think the overall chemistry would have been much more cohesive if it would have been a full-on campaign started at level 1 where the specific themes to be explored and the various characters' quests would have been able to be calibrated. Its clear that there is certainly some "theme dissonance" going on, I think that could easily be smoothed over to a shared signal with proper communication and homogenization.

Why must it start at L1? The characters meet at some point (whether L1 or L11) and begin to learn about one another. That's my play preference - I don't need omniscience of the other PC's abilities, personalities, etc. Let it come out in play. I don't want to hear "My character is very dismissive because he's shy, introverted and distrusting of other people, due to the following 17 events spelled out in his detailed background, and that's why he responds to your enquiries in a curt, dismissive fashion and doesn't share any of his history." To me, that breaks any immersion.

I've GMed for all types (including the various member profiles that we had for the PBP). As long as folks are mature and cooperative (which all 4 of you are of course) it can be made to work. If everyone knew what was going to be stridently advocated for at the outset, it would have been pretty seamless I suspect.

"Seamless" and "unsurprising" often go hand in hand. I prefer the latter, but it does require mature and co-operative players, as well as a GM who is reviewing things at the outset to ensure the game can work, even with bumps in the road. If Tony is playing a Dwarf, and Fred's character has the goal of Dwarven Genocide, something probably has to give.

 

[Manbearcat]

Why must it start at L1? The characters meet at some point (whether L1 or L11) and begin to learn about one another.

It doesn't have to. It just makes it easier as the themes and tribulations of a level 1 character are going to be less embroiled than those of a level 11 character. A level 11 character will have resolved myriad quests in the course of the preceding levels, will possess a considerable suite of Powers, Feats, all of his Theme features that all have story trajectory and history, and more importantly, a Paragon Path that provides thematic focus for the challenges to come.

Putting all of those considerations together to spit out a game that each player (not character...person at the table with a real life and limited time to spend on gaming) wants to spend their leisure time on is more difficult than creating a game from level 1 and having those characters evolve together as a team with shared history. These are people who don't know each other in real life. They don't know their genre interests, they don't know their taboos, they don't know the themes they're interested in exploring, and they don't know where they lie on a playstyle agenda continuum (eg smash monsters and take their stuff vs inhabit a character of a living breathing world vs address a premise/theme and find out how that story evolves).

Again, I see a skewing the line of player and character perspective into one (rather than the concurrent perspectives that I'm familiar with), even before play begins. These are real people in the real world...with kids...with careers...with family obligations...and with competing leisure time interests. Making sure all of the variables that can be barriers for fun and functional play are handled beforehand has always borne itself out as being the best path to achieve such.

Once we know:

- Bobby hates sappy love stories.
- Jack loves the idea of being a dragonslaying knight.
- Tammy likes playing demihumans.
- Terry wants to be challenged with hard stuff.
- Jack wants an easy character to play.
- Tammy wants to deal with the difficulties of being a foreigner in a foreign land.
- Terry wants to be a big damn hero, deal with big damn hero stuff and wield a big sword of destiny.
- Bobby likes the idea of defending against the horde encroaching on the nestled frontier settlements.
- They all want Tolkein Orcs, Necromancers, Goblins, Trolls, and a big mean dragon.

then we have a better idea of what not to do and what to do. Now we make characters and try best to inhabit our respective PCs (to the degree that we are capable and it is necessary to enjoy the game).

Maybe that is not your preferred way of resolving the undiscovered preferences and potential pratfalls of real people unfamiliar with one another, all with limited time and competing leisure interests. Maybe that pre-game calibration process and PC generation hurts your ability to be immersed (during play). That is fine. I won't try to psychoanalyze or pretend to understand it. You appear to not be alone (as plenty of others on this board are in lockstep with you). I've just found the demarcating of player and character to be no barrier to functionally inhabiting a character during play. I mean, I've GMed forever. I'm constantly switching between actor, author and director stances, many times inhabiting all three at once. The metagame is never a peripheral element. It is always right in front of me as that is what is demanded of me to frame individual PCs and the group at large into the sort of thematic conflicts they are interested in (while maintaining the requisite internal consistency of genre conceits and high fantasy physics emulation). I've never found it disruptive to my enjoyment of play. But I've likely never experienced (and I'm likely incapable of it) the "deep immersion" that some folks seem to hold dear.