Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
Restriction breeds depth. Width breeds restriction.
A game which its players are heavily restricted (I.e. all human, all asian, all Australian, all Tasmanian) brings about through neccesity deeper characters due to no-one wanting to play exactly the same thing. Characters are heavily explored to avoid simply being clones.
GM: You all must play Dorns. They are big scottish-like people.
P1: I play a hunted criminal, framed for killing a legate. He is intellectual for his race, being something of a scholar though of course society trained him to fight. He isn't a coward, but might gain such a reputation around other "Charge!" Dorns. He's interested in art and music, and is an avid listener; a dream was to learn to play but he has never gained the courage to ask a bard, especially when his friends are "HAR HAR I LOVE KILLIN ORCS!" and such.
P2: I play an honorable but saddened scion of a noble family who is bitterly sad that his way of life and the way of life of his ancestors is being driven into the snow. He has a hidden core of repressed violence that grows when he is forced to go against his noble and honourable ways. He attempts to justify himself but forgive himself, becoming more and more depressed as his actions to save the honour of the Dorns are destroyed.
P3: I play a Dornish farmgirl, big as any southlander man and stronger than most. After her betrothed was betrayed by a rival in her village (She was the instigator of the hidden and illegal betrothal), both the betrothed and her were tortured and the betrothed strung up to die while the rival was made married to her. She killed him and was enslaved for a time as a legates pleasure-slave, where she learned how to be quiet. Tortured by a fear of her own actions, she is a strong willed girl who deliberately forces herself not to lead because she fears failure. As a defender, her dedication to perfection has it's merits.
Problem; Over-restriction breeds sentai groups (Power rangers). Players uninterested in a depth focus will simply bring about a power-rangers esque group and grow bored. The difference between black ranger and blue ranger is minimal, similarity and conformity are valued more than individuality.
GM: You all must play Dorns. They are big scottish-like people.
P1: I play a huge guy with a claymore and a kilt who drinks.
P2: I was going to play... My dorn has a huge maul and a different kilt.
P3: Darnit! Well, I play a big dorn with an axe. A big axe. With a different kilt. It's a girl.
A game where players are heavily encouraged to play wild and varied characters tends to bring about unlikely situations, made worse by the problem of stereotyping. When uncertain, people fall back on stereotypes.
DM: This is Darksun. You can play anything you like. In fact, play anything.
P1: I play a bird-man. Favored class is ranger? I'll do that.
P2: What are the dwarves like? Big, sort of hairless traders? They focus to the exclusion of all else? Whats a normal focus for one of them?
P3: Halflings are cannibals? I don't want to be a cannibal. I play a man made of sand - you say they are all meditational and such? I play a meditational druid one.
P4: I play a thri-kreen.
The adventure progresses - however, the characters (Not players!) can have difficulty meshing. What happens when the thri-kreen attacks another for dominance? Does the entire party turn and kill the bug? Not really. They follow the plot the GM has laid for them (If they are at least nice-to-the-dm players) that truly is very hard for a GM to make emotional for them. So each of these guys goes and survives, and does so with the help of the others. How does a GM draw things of such incredible difference together? There's always the part which says "This is a game, therefore I must join."
Why does the Thri-kreen join the party at all? It isn't bothered by the need for water of the others. Despite a harsh outlook, the birdman which isn't actually much endangered when things hit the fan actually saves the party. Why? Would the character have done that? You do it because it's a game. There's little understanding or emotional investment in a character who's basic ideology as defined is ignored. In actual fact the players aren't playing Thri-kreen, Aacocrka, Asherati or whatever. They are playing P1, P2, and P3 with the powers of the characters.
While a bit of a nonsensical rant, it seems like I'm arguing between narrativist and gamist. I suppose I am.
I'm sure each person enjoys its way of roleplaying. But I think for me at least, a restricted game which breeds depth and investment is a more exciting one than simply defeating challenges placed before me-with-sandy skin.
Thoughts?
A game which its players are heavily restricted (I.e. all human, all asian, all Australian, all Tasmanian) brings about through neccesity deeper characters due to no-one wanting to play exactly the same thing. Characters are heavily explored to avoid simply being clones.
GM: You all must play Dorns. They are big scottish-like people.
P1: I play a hunted criminal, framed for killing a legate. He is intellectual for his race, being something of a scholar though of course society trained him to fight. He isn't a coward, but might gain such a reputation around other "Charge!" Dorns. He's interested in art and music, and is an avid listener; a dream was to learn to play but he has never gained the courage to ask a bard, especially when his friends are "HAR HAR I LOVE KILLIN ORCS!" and such.
P2: I play an honorable but saddened scion of a noble family who is bitterly sad that his way of life and the way of life of his ancestors is being driven into the snow. He has a hidden core of repressed violence that grows when he is forced to go against his noble and honourable ways. He attempts to justify himself but forgive himself, becoming more and more depressed as his actions to save the honour of the Dorns are destroyed.
P3: I play a Dornish farmgirl, big as any southlander man and stronger than most. After her betrothed was betrayed by a rival in her village (She was the instigator of the hidden and illegal betrothal), both the betrothed and her were tortured and the betrothed strung up to die while the rival was made married to her. She killed him and was enslaved for a time as a legates pleasure-slave, where she learned how to be quiet. Tortured by a fear of her own actions, she is a strong willed girl who deliberately forces herself not to lead because she fears failure. As a defender, her dedication to perfection has it's merits.
Problem; Over-restriction breeds sentai groups (Power rangers). Players uninterested in a depth focus will simply bring about a power-rangers esque group and grow bored. The difference between black ranger and blue ranger is minimal, similarity and conformity are valued more than individuality.
GM: You all must play Dorns. They are big scottish-like people.
P1: I play a huge guy with a claymore and a kilt who drinks.
P2: I was going to play... My dorn has a huge maul and a different kilt.
P3: Darnit! Well, I play a big dorn with an axe. A big axe. With a different kilt. It's a girl.
A game where players are heavily encouraged to play wild and varied characters tends to bring about unlikely situations, made worse by the problem of stereotyping. When uncertain, people fall back on stereotypes.
DM: This is Darksun. You can play anything you like. In fact, play anything.
P1: I play a bird-man. Favored class is ranger? I'll do that.
P2: What are the dwarves like? Big, sort of hairless traders? They focus to the exclusion of all else? Whats a normal focus for one of them?
P3: Halflings are cannibals? I don't want to be a cannibal. I play a man made of sand - you say they are all meditational and such? I play a meditational druid one.
P4: I play a thri-kreen.
The adventure progresses - however, the characters (Not players!) can have difficulty meshing. What happens when the thri-kreen attacks another for dominance? Does the entire party turn and kill the bug? Not really. They follow the plot the GM has laid for them (If they are at least nice-to-the-dm players) that truly is very hard for a GM to make emotional for them. So each of these guys goes and survives, and does so with the help of the others. How does a GM draw things of such incredible difference together? There's always the part which says "This is a game, therefore I must join."
Why does the Thri-kreen join the party at all? It isn't bothered by the need for water of the others. Despite a harsh outlook, the birdman which isn't actually much endangered when things hit the fan actually saves the party. Why? Would the character have done that? You do it because it's a game. There's little understanding or emotional investment in a character who's basic ideology as defined is ignored. In actual fact the players aren't playing Thri-kreen, Aacocrka, Asherati or whatever. They are playing P1, P2, and P3 with the powers of the characters.
While a bit of a nonsensical rant, it seems like I'm arguing between narrativist and gamist. I suppose I am.
I'm sure each person enjoys its way of roleplaying. But I think for me at least, a restricted game which breeds depth and investment is a more exciting one than simply defeating challenges placed before me-with-sandy skin.
Thoughts?
