e1ven said:
I think it's a lot more importaint to flesh out the characters, give them believable storylines, believable reasons to be doing things, and reasonable plotlines.
Character development is 100x more importaint than moving the story along.
My character was quite well developed - as a guy who doesn't like card games and is terrible at talking to people with IQs below 170 and/or cup sizes above A. He hates bureaucracy, and will be scared out of his wits to go through a Stargate, especially if he has to beg somebody for the chance. He'll do it if ordered/forced/threatened, but he won't be thrilled about it. So this last five weeks of playing has essentially boned Julian every which way but Sunday, and I'm playing him out of character right now just because things are set up as obvious plot devices and we sorely need plot devices.
At this point, I find myself reinventing the character to make him palatable to the NPCs involved long enough to get him on a team... where presumably if he shows his old personality, he will promptly find himself back in a lab coat with the oldest man ever to attend a Battlestar Galactica conference. I've had to ditch virtually all of his arrogance and confidence just to keep him going somewhere that remotely represents forward, because you're more than willing to tell my character to go to hell and die at any stage in the process. This would leave me the choice of starting the whole selection process over again with a character more suited to saying what the NPCs want to hear, or deciding that PBP isn't for me. Not very appealing options.
Unfortunately, because you're playing the NPCs, and you were in on the character's concept, you're still referring to character traits (his arrogance, etc.) that haven't been shown in RP, and may be getting forcibly removed from the character. So Julian's getting in-game black marks with his future commander, for character flaws that I've had to remove in order to keep him in the game at all.
E1ven said:
For one, if Colonel Johnson doesn't approve you character, your character will not be on the team. Really. I'm certain about that, and it's not up for discussion. He may go off-world for a mission or two, but he won't be joining the team a regular member. That's not the way the SGC works, and it wouldn't be fair to Johnson.
Colonel Johnson has yet to meet my character in five weeks. So you can probably stop stressing that. And you really could have been less heavy-handed about the "not open for discussion." This is obviously a lot further away from the IRC roleplays we used to do, where it was nothing but discussion, than I'm keen on at the moment.
E1ven said:
Secondly, I seriously dislike games with a "sign on the wall for adventures". I think it makes the game too superficial, and not very interesting. If that's what you're expecting, I'm sorry to dissapoint, but you won't get it. But if you're expectign to grow the character, to let real character development happen, and to get the chance to do some Cool Stuff through a stargate. Fight badguys, Solve mysteries and the like.
But you'll be doing it because it's what makes sense for the characters, not because we want to move faster.
There is a "sign on the wall for adventure" in the SGC. It's a big naquadah hula hoop. Kinda hard to miss it. So much adventure goes through that vertical wading pool that two TV shows have been supported by it. Building characters through adventuring is what makes it fun. If I wanted to build an alterego to play 7-card stud, there's plenty of online casinos.
As you know from our AIM conversation tonight, I'm in a foul disposition, so take the tone of this post with a shaker of salt.
