Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3051359" data-attributes="member: 7240">Well, let's clarify what we are disagreeing about before we misconstrue the nature of our disagreement.Why? There are a number of things that distinguish an RPG session from a play:(a) the audience and the players are the same group; there are no passive spectators;(b) the dialogue and events that take place in the game are not predetermined whereas the events and dialogue in a play are tightly scripted right down to gestures and syllables;(c) the emotional rewards for participants are different in that there is no group of spectators whose response is evaluative;just to name a few.So, the real question becomes: how do these substantial differences between an RPG and a play affect how people play their characters? If these substantial differences do not affect how characters are played why don't they?Should you come to the table with ideas of what kind of person your character might be like? Absolutely. That's not only a necessity; it's something you could not avoid doing. The question is this: how flexible is the framework with which you come to the game? I believe that the more flexible an initial framework is, the more easily a real character can grow out of it.But think about what a framework is. A framework is a general concept, not an inventory of minor details and events. Part of a framework is something like, "This guy used to be a soldier but he left the army for some reason. There is a bunch of residual bitterness and resentment from whatever it was that happened." Now, it may be that over time, the residual bitterness will continue to be part of the character but the army might turn into a group of guerilla rebels; until these things are declared, there remains flexibility and the capacity to adapt.Motivation comes thick and fast in RPGs. There are fights; people develop reasons for being in the fights and caring about which side they are on and what the outcome is. They make new friends and associates and develop bonds with them. They are confronted by challenges. It is when you are actually in situations like this that your background fills in. How your character reacts to situations will tell you things about his background that are more interesting and realistic than anything you could write up in a character background piece at the start of the campaign. Do I say every character should start as a complete cipher, a blank slate? No. What I say is that "when I make a character I do not know very much about him." You feel you have a problem "getting into" your character. Think about the advice people get on the subject of "getting into" things -- things like relationships, one night stands, the ocean, a new outfit, a new circle of friends. The refrain you hear again and again is, "Don't overthink it." What I see you doing here is overthinking, trying to pre-plan things that need to just happen.Look: we're not disagreeing about whether a character should have a backstory and personality. I think there is absolute unanimity on this thread that backstory=good; personality=good. The question we are debating is: how do we create compelling, authentic and realistic backstories and personalities. And I suggest that you stop thinking like someone doing Henry V and start thinking like someone doing improv.</blockquote>

Verification