I wonder what the best way to get people to play their character is. What I mean is that so often gamers just play themselves with a sword and shield, rather than developing personality and motivations for the character. I find myself doing this as well. Unless I spend the time to really make up the character of my character, I am just playing an archetype with my own personality.
I fell into this trap again this week. Derek starts his third story arc on Saturday, for the Supers game that we have been playing on and off since late 2005. I made up a cool wizard and when we sat down to play test him last night in a solo game, I realised that a cool wizard was all he was. Sure, I had thought about his background and had a pretty good idea of where he learned magic, but apart from his desire to stem the inevitable demon invasion, I had no idea what drove him or even who he was.
Luckily we had that session last night, because otherwise I would have been stumbling around Saturday's game not knowing how to be in character. I still haven't worked it all out yet, but I at least now know that I have to work it out. Personality.
Being in character means more than putting on an accent and speaking like you are in an Elizabethan drama*. It means actually trying to put yourself in the shoes of the character you have created and this is something that a lot of gamers do in a lackluster kind of way. The best examples of this often come from religious characters.
The player creates a priest of the god of justice and thinks about how to play the character and then homes in on the religious side. Easy. A very straightforward style now comes from that player, as all his character’s decisions are based on the will of the god of justice. All of his interactions with the other characters are scornful of their perceived failings and his choices are easy because they are predetermined. This is all fine if you are prepared to settle for predictable, lackluster play.
The priest I have described is only remotely real. While I’m sure there are historical instances of the man devoted wholly to his god, there are many times that number that are devoted to their god while retaining some semblance of personality. Interesting characters have quirks and flaws. Rounded characters have desires and prejudices. The priest of the god of justice I described has none of these things because the player took the easy road when figuring out how to play him.
From now I am going to expect my players to fully develop their character before playing. I want to know about their quirks, what frustrates them, what they hope for, what they fear and a host of other things that will flesh out a character so that it is more than an office worker** in chainmail.
*unless you are in an Elizabethan drama.
** that is not aimed at anyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's important to actually get the players to define their character in some way, whether in a single word, or a few words, defining either motivation or personality. Then there's some kind of guideline. However, I allow people one or two sessions to get used to the tone of the game and to their own characters before setting everything in stone. I remember once playing this druid who I wanted to play very spiritual and quiet, but the game was really brutal and so my idea was just lost.
ReplyDeleteJacek would basically say "that's not in character for you" if he felt we were doing something out of character. The only issue was that he was defining our character off our stats (INT-WIS-CHA) and our character class, so it wasn't really satisfactory for either side.
Magda would ask us to justify actions that contradicted what we had set down in the first session, usually a one-word definition as in the White Wolf games.
I'm experimenting with the Reputation-Motivation-Persona idea.
I like the idea of a fully fleshed out character, especially if the players are prepared to play in character. I would leave some flexibility for a post-game change though.