#2: The Rest of the Rules

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/building/building2.phtml

Summary:

The rules of character composition and a gut check.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/building/building2.phtml) for more information.

[smascrns]

I read your rule 4 and just couldn't keep stop thinking about Bilbo. Here we have a "painting on the wall" until someone comes - Gandalf - and turns him into an adventurer.

I personally feel that we should not make too much of a difference between character creation and character playing. Character creation is part of character playing and a lot of the things we can write down in the character sheet at the creation stage can also come latter while playing (except for the mechanical statystics; in fact I tend to think that the core function of character creation is precisely to define those).

Which means that yes, characters need a reason for adventuring but that reason can come at any moment, depending on the way the campaign develops. Trying to force it upfront at the character creation stage may be as contrieving and as artificial as doing it at a latter stage.

Rule 4 is deeply connected with rule 5. Yes, rule 5 is almost self evident (or at least is should be). But sometimes it takes time for the GM to define the exact style for his campaign. In other ocasions the players need time to understand that style. When this happens it's better to withold the reasons for adventuring to a latter stage since otherwise the players may create at the character creation stage reasons that will not fit the style.

I think what I mean is that you are right by stating that reasons for adventuring, consistent play style and long term goals all should be there in the campaign. It just happens that there is no right way to bring these out. Sometimes it's better to do it in the first stage in the game where the GM describes the setting and the players create their characters; other times this can come forward latter, maybe in an evolutionary way.
Besides, the difference between player motivations and character motivations is not only about goals. It also applies to reasons for adventuring and to play style.
Besides 2, the reason for adventuring is just one of the long term goals.

And I don't doo much of rule 7 either. For instance, I once played (RuneQuest) in a group where there was an introvert. He played all kinds of characters, including some with very different personalities from his. How could that be?

Well, that's the beauty of roleplaying GAMES. They allow for a combination of a player and a character that are very different among themselves. They don't require the character to be the player in a funny looking dress. They allow this because they have a game system. If the player cannot play the character the game system can. It works like an artificial reality.

For instance, the character of the said player had to seduce the princess. We would not expect that nice, good introvert to play this as if he was a theatre actor. What we expected him to do was to roll his character skill and we would work from there.

That same group also had an opposite player that was an extrovert. He was very entertaining with his permanent creativity. But his character was a different matter. No mather how seductive his speeches might be, in the end what decided the situation was the dice rolls.

This was good and in fact it allowed the game to go. What we all knew was that roleplaying, at least the way we played, was not about interpreting a character in the sense a character is interpreted in theatre. It was about taking action and making things go forward from the perspective of the characters, not from the perspective of the players. The game system was there for this purpose.
Yes, what the players did is always part of the fun. Rpgs are played at many levels, they are not only mechanical pen-and-paper creations of artificial realities.

For our group playing this way worked just fine because it created a balance. The introvert - and most any other player - was not sidelined by the extrovert. We could enjoy the tirades of the latter, but he didn't become the dominating start in the game. In game terms what the extrovert said in a short sentence mattered as much as the barroque discourses of the introvert. In the end that there was a sense of respect to the personal characteristics of each player in such terms that all had an oportunity to play. And that's what roleplaying is all about. At least IMO.

[gschneider]

The process of creating a character is not one that ends when the campaign begins and the numbers are all laid out on teh character sheet. All good characters continue to eveolve and change throughout a campaign as the events (sometimes very dramatic events) help shape their personality and change the original configuration of the character. In simple (i.e. D&D) terms, the experience gained through adventuring does not just give increase the actual character statistics, but it also changes the characters personality, outlook and goals.

Often this is called character development.

Bilbo's character goal of "get back to the shire in one piece" was long term enough for the campaign he was in. The GM should of known that, although the player might have questioned it. Gandalf showing up was either contrived by the GM after the player failed to give Bilbo a reason to go adventuring, or was stated upfront during chracter creation. The problem with the GM contrivance is that the player had a good chance of saying no, and certainly if one looked at the surface personality of Bilbo, the player shoudl have said "No, have a nice time" and given the dwarves some food for the road while waving his goodbyes from his round door. Was it better for the player to know upfraont what his reason was going to be? Probably not, as it would take some fun out of the whole thing, but it might have been better for the group as a whole, since there was not going to be any worries or "forcing" of Bilbo's character into the campaign even when it didn't seem to fit. A coontrivance that hurts the in-game believability of Bilbo's actions.

Greg

[yoacusna]

I think I'd sumarise your articles by saying that I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree with
"Your character must be fun for you and the other players" and
"You must be able to play your character";
I thoroughly disagree with
"Your character must be good at heart", and I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments to the contrary; and that the remaining four rules are good for most traditional adventuring-party-based RPGs, but might not apply in a less typical one.

[Magnamammoth]

I'm the kind of GM who will look at a Player's character sheet in light of these rules. Usually the question I ask is "Did you create this character because you had to, or because you wanted to?" If the answer is the former, I will usually start the session with the characters who answered with the latter.

These rules are helpful for me as well in trying to create the characters that populate my game world. I will not put a character into print that I myself would not want to play.

Thanks,