What does it take / how long does it take to "get into" a character?

[innerdude]

What establishes the character, here, is a complicated intersection of build elements (Beliefs and Instincts that underlie the situation), declared actions (as per your post), resolution outcomes (eg failing the Steel check - Aedhros isn't as hard as he thinks he is), and then "mopping up" in light of how things have landed.

This brings up a very interesting point --- how open is the "average" player to modifying an internalized view of their character based on something like a failed action declaration?

My character isn't as "hard" as he thinks he is could be (and very well might have been) an interesting turning point for how you played that character.

Do we allow externalities of play affect the way we see our character --- because people within the fiction view our character differently based on certain action declaration successes/failures?

 

[chaochou]

What establishes the character, here, is a complicated intersection of build elements (Beliefs and Instincts that underlie the situation), declared actions (as per your post), resolution outcomes (eg failing the Steel check - Aedhros isn't as hard as he thinks he is), and then "mopping up" in light of how things have landed.

Are beliefs and instincts in Burning Wheel ‘build elements’?

At the very least they co-exist as part of both character build and game situation. That’s how they perform their function…

 

[pemerton]

Are beliefs and instincts in Burning Wheel ‘build elements’?

At the very least they co-exist as part of both character build and game situation. That’s how they perform their function…

I call them PC build elements for purely formal reasons - they sit on the PC sheet, are chosen by the player, are properties of the character.

But obviously they factor into situation pretty importantly . . .

This brings up a very interesting point --- how open is the "average" player to modifying an internalized view of their character based on something like a failed action declaration?

My character isn't as "hard" as he thinks he is could be (and very well might have been) an interesting turning point for how you played that character.

Do we allow externalities of play affect the way we see our character --- because people within the fiction view our character differently based on certain action declaration successes/failures?

Well, I think this is at least part of what @darkbard was pointing to.

My feeling is that that if you don't do this, there's a sense in which you're not really taking part in creating a shared fiction! Because a key part of the fiction is unilaterally pre-authored.

 

[darkbard]

This might seem like disagreement, but I'm not sure it is. I'm curious what you think.

I think you've read me post about my Burning Wheel dark elf, who tried to stab an innkeeper in his bed, in order to steal his strongbox. My co-player/co-GM demanded that I make a Steel test; which I failed, and so Aedhros hesitated long enough for Alicia (the other PC) to cast Persuasion and suggest that I not follow through with the killing.

Casting the spell caused Alicia to fall unconscious from tax, so Aedhros took the money from the box (the innkeeper was already unconscious, as a result of a chokehold from Alicia) and the innkeeper's boots, and carried the unconscious Alicia down to the quayside.

What establishes the character, here, is a complicated intersection of build elements (Beliefs and Instincts that underlie the situation), declared actions (as per your post), resolution outcomes (eg failing the Steel check - Aedhros isn't as hard as he thinks he is), and then "mopping up" in light of how things have landed.

I'm guessing that a fair bit of DW play - and the revelation of character - feels like this too?

I don't see disagreement between us here. In pointing to PC actions, I am hoping to draw focus to play at the table and what makes that a shared enterprise, that until a player's perception of character meets situation and there is interplay between the two (my focus here on action) character is incomplete. I see your recapitulation of the sequence with Aedhros, Alicia, and the innkeeper--and your expanded list of intersecting factors--to build from what I posted earlier.

 

[pemerton]

@darkbard, thanks for the reply.

To build further, and more provocatively - not necessarily provoking you, but more referring to the content of the thread as a whole:

What do you think of my remark upthread?

This brings up a very interesting point --- how open is the "average" player to modifying an internalized view of their character based on something like a failed action declaration?

<snip>

Do we allow externalities of play affect the way we see our character --- because people within the fiction view our character differently based on certain action declaration successes/failures?

My feeling is that that if you don't do this, there's a sense in which you're not really taking part in creating a shared fiction! Because a key part of the fiction is unilaterally pre-authored.

I think what I've posted is consistent with at least this much of your most recent post:

In pointing to PC actions, I am hoping to draw focus to play at the table and what makes that a shared enterprise, that until a player's perception of character meets situation and there is interplay between the two (my focus here on action) character is incomplete.

One reason I think this question is provocative is this:

If we think about what gets called "neo-trad" play - at least as I understand it - the background/setting/context has been pre-authored (by the GM or module writer or whomever). And the character has been pre-authored, the background/setting/context being a "stage" on which the character conception is portrayed and fully realised. But not discovered.

If that abstract characterisation is fair, then what is the scope of the play-generated shared fiction in neo-trad play? It starts to seem quite narrow.

 

[darkbard]

I agree with your comment upthread, wholeheartedly. What separates characters in a TTRPG from those of other media, to me, are the unfixed nature and shared/multifaceted inputs to their creation.

Further, I agree that this is a provocative take ... for a certain kind of "neotrad" gamer who (1) believes their character, largely conceived via backstory, is sacrosanct to external input and imagines situations their character may encounter to be backstory crafted discretely from their input as player as the only means of achieving the shared illusion of a "believable, coherent, living, breathing world" and (2) who is likely to challenge your take via a semantic tangent about what "discovery" means.

 

[pemerton]

who is likely to challenge your take via a semantic tangent about what "discovery" means.

Interesting prediction!

 

[dragoner]

I get into character during chargen pretty much, using some sort of internal monologue to create a backstory. Don't worry, I keep it to three paragraphs usually.

 

[Mallus]

It typically takes me between immediately and several months. I like to think of the early levels as “workshopping”. It helps if I hit on a good accent quickly.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I no longer use accents, but speech patterns and mannerisms are absolutely a huge part of defining a character for me.

But, again reiterating how important actually playing the character is to their development, I've come up with voices that have turned out to be impossible to maintain over a session. Like the dwarf that SPOKE IN ALL CAPS - I had to tone that down to avoid blowing out my speaking voice for the rest of the day. It's one thing to say a few sentences a certain way, another to talk at length for hours.

It helps if I hit on a good accent quickly.