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!
