I've gotten lots of feedback on this still, and the common questions are "What character is [Insert TV Personality or My Favorite PC Here] To a certain extent, that defeats the point of why I posted it. I meant it to be a pro-active post, as opposed to reactive. However, I should have suspected that people would treat it like it was awesome and try to apply it, even if they were having a perfectly good time in their game with their PC as is. So, in an effort to get everyone in in the awesomeness of thinking just a little bit more like Mitchell, here's a few examples to feed the ever growing hunger and need to have a label put on things!
Let's go with some of your basic gaming scenarios.
The tried and true "everyone is in an inn drinking when a mysterious stranger implores all the noble adventurers for help against a wicked, evil force" in your Tolkien Style Dungeon XP and Gold Coins Adventure.
The Hero: starts putting on their armor and weapons, getting ready whether people are with them or not. They then rally anyone who does not wish to go with a passionate, noble speech.
The Enablers: Ask the Stranger for details on the wicked evil force.
The Narrator: Warns the party that this force is not as simple to defeat as the Stranger says.
The Foil: States that the Narrators and Heros plan is foolish and that the party should go with their approach. Or they ask the stranger what the reward is, and refuse for the party when it is too low.
The Monkeywrench: Seeing danger ahead, gets himself good and drunk to prepare.
The Nevish: has to be dragged kicking and screaming because they have an ability that will help the quest.
Or, to use a politico example in everyones favorite "Yelling Vampires: The Bad Outfits" game. The Prince of the City is finally challenged for his decadence and security lapses by the Hero, who attempts a very gauche coup in the middle of Vampiric sacred ground.
The Hero: Stands tall after his monologue, ready to face the consequences, even if they mean death.
The Enablers: Distract the Princes cronies, block his escape, and prepare their magic powers to protect their friend.
The Narrator: Has already let the Hero know that they may die in this action, but that doesn't mean it does not need to be done. They provide the Hero the Princes Dark Secret to use should the going get rough.
The Foil: Take this opportunity to take out a few of his Court rivals who support the Prince and blame it on the Hero and Enablers later.
The Monkeywrench: Tries to attack the Prince directly in support, and in turn gets captured and has their life turned into a bargaining chip.
The Nevish: Sees things get out of hand and hides in the corner hoping its all over soon.
And lets say you're playing Magical Samurai in The Land Of Epic Yet Mediocre Fanfiction. The battlefield lines have been drawn, as the Daimyos of the two rival clans make one final parley before the bloodshed begins, and the PCs watch from their regiment.
The Hero: finally comes to peace with his distant father, and draws the katana he swore he would never use for the first time.
The Enablers: Make offerings to the ancestors and Shinto spirits to bless the battle, and if possible, profess their love for one another before it is too late.
The Narrator: Rallies the peasant soldiers as the noble samurai make their own preparations, understanding that every man fears death and needs to know they are not alone.
The Foil: Convinces the Monkeywrench to fire the first shot in hopes that the Daimyo will be caught off guard...the Foil is next in line for the job of course.
The Monkeywrench: Tries to be a big hero, and fire the first arrow, throwing all the planned strategy into chaos.
The Nevish: is busy trying to figure out how to fit a second set of armour over their first one.
I'll post more of these if people like them, but I think people maybe starting to get the point.
Anyways, I is off.
-M
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Difference
I haven't forgotten my blog, I swear! I have eight million half finished posts, but the stupidity of players keeps increasing to the amount where I can't keep up!
Let's see if I can finish this one.
"That guy sucks, he just plays to "win", how lame is that?"
"Yeah seriously. Doesn't he get what roleplaying is about, let's tell a story here!"
"Yeah. That's what Mitchell would want and man does he have a sexy ass!"
I hear this conversation ALL the time. (Okay the last part not ALWAYS.) But I see lots of players throw the "munchkin" tag at people when they're guilty of the munchkins motivations, and use this as the holier then thou attitude to get away with it. Now mind you, as you know, the Munchkin is as wrong as farting on an escalator. But at least they're blatant about it. It's these "emotional munchkins" that really get in the way of us people trying to tell a story, because they want to get neck deep in all of our stories while using the munchkin tactics, and people don't notice but scratch their heads wondering why all these "great roleplayers" are having such a sucky game. They're "stealth munchkins" if you will.
"Aha, yeah, I see what Mitchell is saying, people want power in terms of status within the in character group are as bad as the.."
Okay stop. No.
Playing to win doesn't just mean playing to be respected, playing to have the most points, kill the most PCs, or even playing to be liked by the group. Playing to win means playing to succeed. And that means playing to avoid failure.
Now, this is a tough one...because nobody in real life ever tries to lose unless they have some serious issues. (Mind you, you'd be surprised how many characters are supposed to have these same issues but play to succeed.) It's counter intuitive, so I don't fault people for this as much, except at extreme levels, which are frighteningly common.
However, I'm seeing an increasing number of players who are INCREDIBLY argumentative. With STs, with other players, vehemently defending every point about their characters decisions or ideas as if they are going to be killed if their characters are wrong even once. They'll say their character is very flawed, but all of those flaws are only ever roleplayed on their own terms. It's as if they have them just to say that they are there, so they can't fail at proper character creation either. No matter what, their character may be tragic, broken and sad, but they're never ever wrong unless someone actually proves it through long arguments that they can't refute on an out of character level. What happens to these players? They don't get in trouble, no. They may even succeed a lot, in fact they often do. But they also don't get played with very often, because they're a chore to interact with and even if you do, the potential is nowhere near as interesting for good play as that guy who could flip out at any time. They're just not as fun to play with.
If we go by six character theory, all six have to fail to succeed on a dramatic level. (Fail to succeed, I like that.)
1. The Hero is defined by their struggle. No failures, no struggle. Heroes should fail the MOST. Luke misses the first shot at the death star, loses his fricking HAND when he fights his father, gets captured by Jabba and all sorts of bad things. Buffy quits and moves back to LA for a Summer and starts sleeping with Spike. Frodo continually uses the One Ring when he knows he shouldn't.
2. The Enablers have to fail at things so the Hero can do them, and make it clear when people are really screwed. Princess Leia can't stop them from blowing up Alderan, Willow goes evil when he girlfriend dies.
3. The Narrators can't always be right, otherwise they just become mouthpices for the plot with no character of their own. By being opinionated, but biased, they provide a human element to their very necessary wisdom. Giles won't advise Buffy she's outgrown him because he hasn't outgrown her. Obi-wan doesn't tell Luke about his father and Luke pays for it. Gandalf thinks he can convince Soromon the error of his ways.
4. Monkeywrenches need to fail ALOT, because it's much better drama then when their problem causing drama is done on purpose. Accidents and failures keep them endearing to the other characters as opposed to spiteful. Dawn can't help but get captured every time something bad happens. RDD2 gets captured by jawas.
5. The Foil needs to fail to explain why they are not the Hero despite being their equal in some manner. Plus, failure can motivate a foil like nothing else. (I find people who play Foils are the worst for playing to succeed.) Spike helps people he shouldn't and burns bridges left and right. Jane Cobb sells the crew to the Alliance, and begs for his life afterwards.
6. Nevish's should just fail at nearly everything out of principle, the more they want it, the harder they should fall.
The next game you play, I challenge you to go out and make a mistake with your character. A big one. See if you feel like you're about to die. (It may be realy uncomfortable at first, it was for me.) See if the world collapses around you. I bet it won't, and if it does, it will be fun. Every player I know, when asked, would prefer their character to go out in a blaze of glory rather then get bored, yet people don't go out in a blaze of glory for doing and saying the right thing at every turn. And you don't have to.
Failure sucks in real life, I know. But it's fun in LARP, I promise.
Let's see if I can finish this one.
"That guy sucks, he just plays to "win", how lame is that?"
"Yeah seriously. Doesn't he get what roleplaying is about, let's tell a story here!"
"Yeah. That's what Mitchell would want and man does he have a sexy ass!"
I hear this conversation ALL the time. (Okay the last part not ALWAYS.) But I see lots of players throw the "munchkin" tag at people when they're guilty of the munchkins motivations, and use this as the holier then thou attitude to get away with it. Now mind you, as you know, the Munchkin is as wrong as farting on an escalator. But at least they're blatant about it. It's these "emotional munchkins" that really get in the way of us people trying to tell a story, because they want to get neck deep in all of our stories while using the munchkin tactics, and people don't notice but scratch their heads wondering why all these "great roleplayers" are having such a sucky game. They're "stealth munchkins" if you will.
"Aha, yeah, I see what Mitchell is saying, people want power in terms of status within the in character group are as bad as the.."
Okay stop. No.
Playing to win doesn't just mean playing to be respected, playing to have the most points, kill the most PCs, or even playing to be liked by the group. Playing to win means playing to succeed. And that means playing to avoid failure.
Now, this is a tough one...because nobody in real life ever tries to lose unless they have some serious issues. (Mind you, you'd be surprised how many characters are supposed to have these same issues but play to succeed.) It's counter intuitive, so I don't fault people for this as much, except at extreme levels, which are frighteningly common.
However, I'm seeing an increasing number of players who are INCREDIBLY argumentative. With STs, with other players, vehemently defending every point about their characters decisions or ideas as if they are going to be killed if their characters are wrong even once. They'll say their character is very flawed, but all of those flaws are only ever roleplayed on their own terms. It's as if they have them just to say that they are there, so they can't fail at proper character creation either. No matter what, their character may be tragic, broken and sad, but they're never ever wrong unless someone actually proves it through long arguments that they can't refute on an out of character level. What happens to these players? They don't get in trouble, no. They may even succeed a lot, in fact they often do. But they also don't get played with very often, because they're a chore to interact with and even if you do, the potential is nowhere near as interesting for good play as that guy who could flip out at any time. They're just not as fun to play with.
If we go by six character theory, all six have to fail to succeed on a dramatic level. (Fail to succeed, I like that.)
1. The Hero is defined by their struggle. No failures, no struggle. Heroes should fail the MOST. Luke misses the first shot at the death star, loses his fricking HAND when he fights his father, gets captured by Jabba and all sorts of bad things. Buffy quits and moves back to LA for a Summer and starts sleeping with Spike. Frodo continually uses the One Ring when he knows he shouldn't.
2. The Enablers have to fail at things so the Hero can do them, and make it clear when people are really screwed. Princess Leia can't stop them from blowing up Alderan, Willow goes evil when he girlfriend dies.
3. The Narrators can't always be right, otherwise they just become mouthpices for the plot with no character of their own. By being opinionated, but biased, they provide a human element to their very necessary wisdom. Giles won't advise Buffy she's outgrown him because he hasn't outgrown her. Obi-wan doesn't tell Luke about his father and Luke pays for it. Gandalf thinks he can convince Soromon the error of his ways.
4. Monkeywrenches need to fail ALOT, because it's much better drama then when their problem causing drama is done on purpose. Accidents and failures keep them endearing to the other characters as opposed to spiteful. Dawn can't help but get captured every time something bad happens. RDD2 gets captured by jawas.
5. The Foil needs to fail to explain why they are not the Hero despite being their equal in some manner. Plus, failure can motivate a foil like nothing else. (I find people who play Foils are the worst for playing to succeed.) Spike helps people he shouldn't and burns bridges left and right. Jane Cobb sells the crew to the Alliance, and begs for his life afterwards.
6. Nevish's should just fail at nearly everything out of principle, the more they want it, the harder they should fall.
The next game you play, I challenge you to go out and make a mistake with your character. A big one. See if you feel like you're about to die. (It may be realy uncomfortable at first, it was for me.) See if the world collapses around you. I bet it won't, and if it does, it will be fun. Every player I know, when asked, would prefer their character to go out in a blaze of glory rather then get bored, yet people don't go out in a blaze of glory for doing and saying the right thing at every turn. And you don't have to.
Failure sucks in real life, I know. But it's fun in LARP, I promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)