The Bendix Perspective: A BM Editorial

[Stabbity]

but nope I still haven't seen John Snow (wonder if he's in BoM).

That's because he knows nothing.

[Perth]

That's because he knows nothing.

Careful, I got warned by moderators for making that joke. With no apology and my threads locked when I tried to defend the joke.

[Lacedaemon]

I absolutely insist that power gaming and acting can go together. You can optimize for success, then sing an epic tale of valour about it afterwards. Without victory, there can be no freedom to tell your own tales!

Stabbity's convoluted plots are a demonstration that you can play the game like a game-of-thrones series. Perhaps it's just that most human beings lack the social understanding to pull such things off.

I believe that ic and ooc separation goes out the window once you have people who will play to win. Ultimately, you don't just deceive or screw over a character, but also a person who controls the character and tries to act in its best interests. When you plot against characters, you plot against people - you're not playing against fictional strengths and weaknesses of someone's avatar, but against a person who thinks and trusts and hopes.

Also, unless you have a Lord who is really on the ball about dealing with his relationship with his knights, the game pretty much begins at Lordship.

[Bendix]

This third column is (obviously) coming extremely late. It's shaping up to be a hectic schoolyear here in hicktown, USA- I swear every year we lose more staff and gain more kids. We have the Republicans to thank for that, at least in my county.

So today (or rather last week and the week before) we are going to talk about how we actually construct and embody characters, and why, as always, no one should judge anyone for any of it.

Article number 'C':

Improv! (Or Die)

The principles of Improvisational Acting or Comedy, often known simply as 'improv', can play a huge role in the way we play a roleplaying game. People talk about how dramatic acting and writing can affect the game, but this is actually a false assumption. An RPG is its own medium within the literary world.

Playing an RPG is different from writing a novel or screenplay, because in a novel or screenplay the story is set, from beginning to end, by a single person, who controls every character, and has concrete ideas in how to work toward an ending. You can't really compare it to a thing like, oh, for instance, Game of Thrones, because, although they have similar settings, they are completely different mediums. That would be like trying to compare "The Mona Lisa" to "Scarface" (So please, don't try. At least not in this thread.)

Playing an RPG is different from acting, because you are not reading from a script when you play an RPG. You have actual decisions to make based on how other players play their characters. The surprises are actually surprising. The choices we make are what ultimately what defines our character.

The false assumption we make about characters in an RPG is that they are built and conceptualized by the player before he begins playing. Now, while some players may attempt to develop a solid concept or not, the character never turns out exactly how you expect, because you don't know what to expect. You cannot conceive of an arc, so all you're left with is archetype. And that's not good enough. Characters grow with every choice they make. Therefore, to generate interest, one must make choices, and force other characters to make choices.

The closest we come to Roleplaying Games in the artistic community is Improvisational Acting. Anyone who has ever taken an improv class will tell you that the two most important rules are to:

1.) Always agree with your partner(s), no matter what, in order to keep the story flowing: Always keep moving the story forward; never try to backtrack. If you try to backtrack an improv, and say "Hey, wait, no you can't do that, let's go back and start over" you're breaking character, breaking the suspense of disbelief, and trying the audience's patience. It's not a book; you can't go back and rewrite and edit before you send it to the press. As soon as you do something it's done.

2.) GO BIG. Always expand on things: If you don't make your ideas seem important, the audience won't think it's important. The premise must be explicit. You must be obvious, as opposed to subtle; it's not a film, where you can give the audience a visual close-up of your character's face, and all the nuanced movement and expression that comes with that. You need broad strokes to connect with everyone.

BM players rarely have a problem with rule #1, but when they do it can really hurt other players experience. If a player is doing something a little bit unorthodox, don't rain on their parade out-of character, especially if it has involved other characters. About a year ago I saw one player make fun of another player for having a pet wolf as being unrealistic. It may not be entirely realistic, but as long as it generates interest and keeps with the setting I will go out of my way not to have a problem with it. Try to make things work, instead of calling people on their errors- people work hard on some of these aspects of roleplaying.

Right now, Battlemaster does NOT have a problem with people straying too far from the settings: no one is trying to jam alien-vampire-cowboys into the game; no one is riding dragons; no one is Terminator. Battlemaster does have a problem, however, with people not generating enough interest. If someone is at least trying, my opinion is that we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We should be supportive.

I feel that most BM players have no problem adhering to rule 2, in certain situations. Little rivalries and quarrels between characters get blown up into duels to the death, intense grappling over positions and power, and even to betrayals and defection. This is what drives a lot of the game, and should looked at from a larger perspective. It is inviting other characters to weigh-in on the situation, and giving everyone a chance for further character exposition. You are forcing a choice by making a mountain out of a molehill, and that's good story fuel.

However, I feel a lot of players, good, decent players even, have a problem actually making those choices, and committing to something. Avoiding confrontation becomes the norm, and eventually you're not even there. Now, you might say "Well, I don't really care about the Roleplaying, just about the power-game", that's fine, but if you avoid conflict too much, you will fall out of favor with everyone. If you have no enemies, you will have no friends. No one will follow you when it comes time to fight, and your realm will lose. There is no growth without conflict. The nature of the game dictates that playing your role is power, more than any Ducal seat or Rulership can ever provide.

Culture ultimately ensures both victory and entertainment. Contribute to your realm's culture if you want to survive.

*   *   *

It took a while, but I feel it was a good way to cap off what I started in article #2.

Next week (or whenever; I got no !@#$in' idea) I will switch gears and start in on the heavy stuff: the ethics of battlemaster, both in-game and out!

[Indirik]

I like your rule 2: go big or go home.

[Lacedaemon]

I like your rule 2: go big or go home.

What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement...  :-[

[De-Legro]

What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement...  :-[

How does that impact potential RP? Even the poorest knight can be the centre of a great tragedy.

[Anaris]

1.) Always agree with your partner(s), no matter what, in order to keep the story flowing: Always keep moving the story forward; never try to backtrack. If you try to backtrack an improv, and say "Hey, wait, no you can't do that, let's go back and start over" you're breaking character, breaking the suspense of disbelief, and trying the audience's patience. It's not a book; you can't go back and rewrite and edit before you send it to the press. As soon as you do something it's done.

This actually contradicts one of BM and SpellMaster's classic Rules of Roleplaying: the "Yes, but..."

It is primarily applicable when you are roleplaying in an adversarial situation—your character fighting against the other player's character in one way or another—and they roleplay something that would simply allow them to declare victory without you getting a chance to respond. So if they said, "But then Kepler breaks past Delvin's defenses and sinks his blade deep—a mortal wound!" I might respond with, "He breaks past Delvin's defenses, yes, but when he lunges in to thrust the blade home, it glances off the chain mail Delvin was wearing beneath his tunic!"

It is not always a necessary technique when roleplaying with someone who follows the rules of RP etiquette properly, but when dealing with someone who has no problem god-moding to ensure that he always wins, following your rule would just leave you dead every time.

[Penchant]

This actually contradicts one of BM and SpellMaster's classic Rules of Roleplaying: the "Yes, but..."

It is primarily applicable when you are roleplaying in an adversarial situation—your character fighting against the other player's character in one way or another—and they roleplay something that would simply allow them to declare victory without you getting a chance to respond. So if they said, "But then Kepler breaks past Delvin's defenses and sinks his blade deep—a mortal wound!" I might respond with, "He breaks past Delvin's defenses, yes, but when he lunges in to thrust the blade home, it glances off the chain mail Delvin was wearing beneath his tunic!"

It is not always a necessary technique when roleplaying with someone who follows the rules of RP etiquette properly, but when dealing with someone who has no problem god-moding to ensure that he always wins, following your rule would just leave you dead every time.

It doesn't really disagree. "Yes, but..." is agreeing with your partner(s), and adds on to it. He is simply saying, don't go OOC arguing about whether or not someone can do something in their Roleplay, because it just wrecks the roleplay immersion of it. 

[Tom]

So if they said, "But then Kepler breaks past Delvin's defenses and sinks his blade deep—a mortal wound!" I might respond with, "He breaks past Delvin's defenses, yes, but when he lunges in to thrust the blade home, it glances off the chain mail Delvin was wearing beneath his tunic!"

Not quite, your example would be almost breaking the rule itself, because you don't say "yes", you only say "yes" to a part.

A better reply would be to accept ALL of the other roleplay and saying "...a mortal wound - or so it seems. The blow would have killed anyone surely, but Delvin staggers back, revealing a hidden chain mail under his tunic that saved his life just then." - it is almost the same, but with an important difference: You are not denying the mortal wound and saying "no, it didn't happen and here is why". You say "yes, that was a mortal wound, except..." - it's a small difference, but a vital one.

[Bendix]

Okay, the obvious caveat to my thesis is that you would follow the rules of the game first and foremost- that should have gone without saying. The rules of improv, self-imposed when in character, come second. It's not some absolutist doctrine.

It's just to illustrate the way techniques from one theatrical discipline can be applied to interacting with other characters in Battlemaster.

[Perth]

What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement...  :-[

Where...where does that realm exist!?

[Zakilevo]

What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement...  :-[

LIES THERE IS NO SUCH REALM THESE DAYS!

[egamma]

Careful, I got warned by moderators for making that joke. With no apology and my threads locked when I tried to defend the joke.

To anyone who is not familiar with the Game of Thrones series, it was an obvious and blatant personal attack. Your warning points were rescinded the same day that they were given. Should I really apologize for not reading/watching the Game of Thrones? As a moderator, is it my responsibility to watch the Game of Thrones?

[Perth]

To anyone who is not familiar with the Game of Thrones series, it was an obvious and blatant personal attack. Your warning points were rescinded the same day that they were given. Should I really apologize for not reading/watching the Game of Thrones? As a moderator, is it my responsibility to watch the Game of Thrones?

Of course not. But I was pretty flabbergasted that I was punished for something as innocuous as saying "you know nothing" in an environment where people frequently curse at one another, accuse each other of cheating, lying, etc.

But, whatever, you obviously mistook my intentions and didn't get the joke. No big. But why in the world were you locking the threads I started trying explain the joke/defend myself? That did nothing but further the feeling of persecution.