"Your character sheet says what you want" - O RLY?

[Belphanior]

It's a sentiment I've heard often on these boards, and just now again while watching some of John Wick's advice vids on youtube.

"What the player fills in on his character sheet, tells the GM about what sort of stuff the player wants to do and experience in the game."

Simple example: a character with lots of social skills wants to be able to often talk his way out of (or into) stuff.


But then I started thinking and come to the following conclusion: no, that's not right. What the player fills in on his character sheet might provide a clue as to what he wants, but more importantly tells us what the player thinks he needs to survive. The 1e Exalted book even goes so far as to say that even though you want to play a socialite or whatever, you're going to need at least Ox-Body Technique and preferably some defensive Charms on top. The player might not want a superhumanly combat-capable socialite, but the game makes it pretty clear it would be wiser to ditch his concept and take another. I've also heard stories often enough about people who made combat monsters because they hated combat; the rationale here being that they'd be able to win combats quicker and get back to the things they do enjoy. These people aren't filling out their sheet with what they want, they fill out their sheet with what they need.

Another facet that's problematic about the established mantra is that it assumes a lot about the player. Really, is every player an RPGnetter/Forgite who masters the game system in question and is fully aware of his own desires regarding the game? I doubt it. I think it's far more likely that many players are actually just picking some stuff they think sounds cool. God knows I've seen it happen often enough.

Anybody else got an experience that proves the mantra right or wrong? Any insights that I've missed? Discuss!

[SteveD]

Yeah, it's a useful idea for many players but to use it as a hard rule is begging for disaster. Different players (and indeed, games) use character sheets for different things.

[Grymbok]

I think it's a reasonable rule but doesn't apply to the whole character sheet. It's when you get to Advantages/Disads/Contacts etc. that you need to pay most attention I think.

But even then it can be hard to separate out the difference between "this power helps my concept" and "this is a thing I'm interest in." Sometimes it's just better to speak to the player and ask them

[Shaila]

"What the player fills in on his character sheet, tells the GM about what sort of stuff the player wants to do and experience in the game."

I just took a close look at my players charactersheets for our Sabbat story. And yes the sheets (to some degree) tell me what they want to experience, however most (my guess is at least 75%) of the dots they have placed are based on the concept they came up with, instead of what they wish to experience.

This I know because, we have used a lot of time during our last couple of campaigns to talk about what people truly want from the roleplaying experience. And they want it all... by this I mean, they want the character development and social events and all that (which is what most of the characters on their sheets focus on), BUT they also want all the high-packed action and gunfights, it might not be what their character do best, but the players enjoy the action just as much as the social stuff.

So I guess what Im trying to say, is what kind of has been said. It really all depends on why type of players you have, if you can use that Mantra. Because some are pretty straight forward (mine where, until I showed them the WOD system, and let them experience true character development and personal horror), so at some point, yeah you could read directly at the charactersheet and see what they wanted ^^
But they have changed, and so have I as a ST/GM/whatever title, and now you cant read as much into the charactersheet, since thats the concept, and thats one thing... Thats how they identify the character they want to play (at least when the need to roll dice comes up). But what they want, both as a character and as a player cant really be read... thats when you either ask to player or just know the player (Ive played with practically the same group for 15 years almost, I know my players, but whenever Im in doubt, and sit them down and honestly ask "What do you want from this campaign" and then ideas fly all over the place, I look down at my notes and thing "Cool, this I gotta find a place for")

*stops babbling, before she repeats herself too much*

[Mesa Virga]

Originally Posted by Shaila

I just took a close look at my players charactersheets for our Sabbat story. And yes the sheets (to some degree) tell me what they want to experience, however most (my guess is at least 75%) of the dots they have placed are based on the concept they came up with, instead of what they wish to experience.

Yes, I think this is quite important. I typically create characters according to a concept* rather than a play preference. I definitely think more about the type of character I would play regardless of the potential situations then character might encounter (subject to the usual caveats about social contracts for play and the like).

*Except in Stormbringer, where it's all random...

[DanB]

Soooooometimes? I mean, somebody maxing out investigation skills may be someone who really doesn't want to do any investigative stuff and just wants a quick successful roll to get it out of the way.

If you write something down in a 'beliefs' or 'loyalties' section without wanting it to come up in play, though, well . . . that would be a poor decision.

[MrJamela]

This is totally true....

....when it is totally true.

Getting tired of Forgite crap being preached as universal "Truths." For every game where I can think of this being the case, I can probably pull out an equal number of games where you're not really going to get this kind of data from the character sheets.

You want to know what your players want?

Ask them.

[GregStolze]

Something I'm experimenting with in eCollapse is a novel way to implement "weaknesses." Every character gets one, and you don't get points for it and so far there's nothing to do about it other than power through.

But what I explicitly say with these is, "DON'T pick a weakness you think will never come up. DON'T pick a weakness you're going to avoid. Heroes aren't heroes because of their uber powah, but because of the way they overcome adversity. This lets you PICK YOUR ADVERSITY. The GM is going to throw challenges at you; that's her job, because without challenge nothing happens. Pick the challenge you WANT. Want a fighty game? Pick 'I can't control my temper.' GM'll give you all the fights you can handle. Want intrigue? 'I'm a terrible judge of character' or 'I'm a sucker for a pretty face.'"

Good idea? Stupid? Variable?

We'll see.

-G.

[FatSpider]

This is a very interesting topic, I don't have anything to really contribute, but I think it would be worth while for Players and GMs to understand what's being said .

[aprogressivist]

Originally Posted by Belphanior

But then I started thinking and come to the following conclusion: no, that's not right. What the player fills in on his character sheet might provide a clue as to what he wants, but more importantly tells us what the player thinks he needs to survive. The 1e Exalted book even goes so far as to say that even though you want to play a socialite or whatever, you're going to need at least Ox-Body Technique and preferably some defensive Charms on top. The player might not want a superhumanly combat-capable socialite, but the game makes it pretty clear it would be wiser to ditch his concept and take another. I've also heard stories often enough about people who made combat monsters because they hated combat; the rationale here being that they'd be able to win combats quicker and get back to the things they do enjoy. These people aren't filling out their sheet with what they want, they fill out their sheet with what they need.

I think your perspective is coming at the problem from a different angle than the basic assumptions of "the character sheet tells me what a player wants" line of thought.

I think this is most clear in your example -- about players playing combat twinks because they hate combat and can therefore end it quickly -- because it posits here a relationship between players and the GM that is almost adverserial.

So I guess this is the difference between the two perspectives: "players take what they need" implies a certain amount of adverseriality at the table that "players take what they want" does not.

To what degree are the players and the GM "opponents" that are competing (in the sense of a game of chess) at the game table? This is a point that needs to be made clear between the players and the GM. If the GM and the players are going to be trying to outfox one another's game strategies (to add a bit of tactical depth or unpredictability to the game, or whatever), then yes, I can imagine a player might be motivated more by what they feel they need, as opposed to what they want. If, however, there's complete transparency on that level (i.e. a more narrativist approach), then a player shouldn't really feel like they need anything.