Roleplaying Discussion

[The Red Foliot]

There's something that's always bugged me around here. It's the way that people justify their characters' actions, saying that they had to do what made sense from a roleplaying angle, that their characters had personalities that were deterministic to a large extent, meaning they simply had to follow through on. From reading this forum, one gets the impression that this manner of playing is the pure and wholesome way to play, while casting an eye to gameplay, doing things that make sense from a gaming or metagaming perspective, is the barbaric and ugly way to play.

To give a generic example (and this has happened many times before), Realm A will declare war on Realm B. The characters of realms C, D, and E are roleplayed by their players as being honorable characters, as most characters are, and so, as they are in a pact with Realm B, they do the honorable thing by standing by their friend and gangbanging Realm A.

This mentality seems to be given credence by the idea that 'character's write themselves,' a claim that a lot of authors make. There is a misinterpretation here. When authors say it, what they mean is not that their characters define the story, but that the story defines their characters. In Macbeth, for instance, Macbeth is an honorable lord. At the start. He does not stay that way for long, though, as the story calls for action and drama, and an honorable character can't always provide those things. According to the needs of the story, Macbeth's personality changes and he becomes treacherous and loathsome, then is quickly eaten up by guilt. It is not the character that is writing the story here. The story has requirements that the character must bend to meet, and that is what it means for a 'character to write itself'. Characters are malleable to a large degree. As we can see in the example of Macbeth, even the most honorable characters can become villains, if the story calls for it.

In Battlemaster, most players like to play their characters as being honorable good guys. Their characters rarely grow much throughout their lives, even when opportunities for change present itself. The honorable kings, as well as their dukes and knights, tend to remain honorable forever. They never think of causing tension in either their own realms or abroad, except for when its done for a noble cause, such as coming to the aid of their honorable allies. This not only negates their own opportunities for dramatic interaction, it actively kills the opportunities for others, as the honorable allies, the unbeatable majority, are driven by their honorable nature to clamp down on any change.

So it seems that the mentality people have is problematic.

But how can it change?

Well, instead of considering characters pure and infallible, we could instead consider them small pieces of a larger story. The story could be considered all-important, and characters could undergo changes in order to augment the story. This, I think, should be the true goal of roleplaying.

[Anaris]

This mentality seems to be given credence by the idea that 'character's write themselves,' a claim that a lot of authors make. There is a misinterpretation here. When authors say it, what they mean is not that their characters define the story, but that the story defines their characters.

While your main point—that characters in BattleMaster tend to be defined at character creation time, and never really change their personalities thereafter, and that this is unrealistic—is quite true, and sometimes problematic, I'm afraid this is actually exactly wrong.

At least in general, when authors say that "characters write themselves," they do, in fact, mean exactly that, and the opposite of what you're saying. For instance, I have, for some years, been on an email list (a rather large one) devoted to the works of Lois McMaster Bujold, of which The Author Herself is also a member. She has frequently described instances in which she had intended a story to go a particular way, but when she got to a certain point in them, one of the characters essentially stood up and said, "Nuh-uh!" The direction she had been thinking of for the story would have required characters to do things that was, well, out of character for them. So what she ended up writing was strongly influenced by the way the characters she had established thought and acted.

Now, she's a good writer (four-time winner of the Hugo Award good), so her characters also grow and change over the course of her books. This is realistic and as it should be—a feedback loop that goes both ways.

But never make the mistake of thinking that when authors say that the characters wrote themselves, or the characters wrote the story, they mean the exact opposite.

[Zakilevo]

I tried to keep my first character for this family honourable and very honest but as he became deeply involved in politics, he changed. At the end, I got tired of trying to keep up with the character and just retired him because he changed too much.

I think characters do change throughout their lifespans rather drastically in some cases.

[The Red Foliot]

While your main point—that characters in BattleMaster tend to be defined at character creation time, and never really change their personalities thereafter, and that this is unrealistic—is quite true, and sometimes problematic, I'm afraid this is actually exactly wrong.

At least in general, when authors say that "characters write themselves," they do, in fact, mean exactly that, and the opposite of what you're saying. For instance, I have, for some years, been on an email list (a rather large one) devoted to the works of Lois McMaster Bujold, of which The Author Herself is also a member. She has frequently described instances in which she had intended a story to go a particular way, but when she got to a certain point in them, one of the characters essentially stood up and said, "Nuh-uh!" The direction she had been thinking of for the story would have required characters to do things that was, well, out of character for them. So what she ended up writing was strongly influenced by the way the characters she had established thought and acted.

Now, she's a good writer (four-time winner of the Hugo Award good), so her characters also grow and change over the course of her books. This is realistic and as it should be—a feedback loop that goes both ways.

But never make the mistake of thinking that when authors say that the characters wrote themselves, or the characters wrote the story, they mean the exact opposite.

Of course characters, plot, setting, and everything else that goes into a story are all wound together. They all have to be taken into account when telling a story. But as 'authors', players have a large degree of control over how their characters respond to things. It isn't nearly as deterministic as some people imagine.

Just because you have an honorable character, doesn't mean they always have to stick by their ally. It's always possible to come up with a reason for your character to change its view - what matters is good taste. So if the game would be funner if in this instance you neglected your ally, or even started your character on a downward path, than that's an option that should be considered.

Creative writing is an art, not a science, and hard rules can't be laid out for it, except for in the very general sense. It doesn't surprise me that you found a contrary example to mine, but then I don't think it contradicts the overall point.

[De-Legro]

Pointless, people largely will play the way that they find interesting. Just as many people play characters whom are so variable as to be ridiculous as the character is largely at the whims of whatever the player wants to do. If people are happy having stagnant characters that play a certain way, well that is obviously making them happy and providing them fun. Considering also that not everyone playing has much of an interest in RP, and even those that do have a varying level of ability, I think you just have to roll with the reality.

[GundamMerc]

Pointless, people largely will play the way that they find interesting. Just as many people play characters whom are so variable as to be ridiculous as the character is largely at the whims of whatever the player wants to do. If people are happy having stagnant characters that play a certain way, well that is obviously making them happy and providing them fun. Considering also that not everyone playing has much of an interest in RP, and even those that do have a varying level of ability, I think you just have to roll with the reality.

Hardly, I actually find this to be rather untrue. People aren't so much happy having stagnant characters, as frustrated that they are not in a position to do anything but make a tiny blip. Say,  for example, that I'm a duke of CE. I'm tired of the current stagnation that is going on. I decide to secede to make something happen. In all likelihood, none of the other duchies join me, CE declares war and calls in allies, and my new realm is dead in maybe a week or two. What's so fun about that? The entire continent is deadlocked, so nothing outside Tom throwing thunderbolts around is going to change this.

[Anaris]

Hardly, I actually find this to be rather untrue. People aren't so much happy having stagnant characters, as frustrated that they are not in a position to do anything but make a tiny blip. Say,  for example, that I'm a duke of CE. I'm tired of the current stagnation that is going on. I decide to secede to make something happen. In all likelihood, none of the other duchies join me, CE declares war and calls in allies, and my new realm is dead in maybe a week or two. What's so fun about that? The entire continent is deadlocked, so nothing outside Tom throwing thunderbolts around is going to change this.

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. This is not about stagnation of realms, or of characters' careers, but of the characters themselves—their personality and outlook on life. (That is, of course, a problem too, it's just a problem for another topic )

In my experience, the most casual BM players don't even have enough character to their characters for it to stagnate or evolve: they're just drones. The next most casual group—which I think makes up the majority; even I fall partially into this category—has at least moderately defined characters, whose definition mostly stays the same throughout the life of the character. It's just a few (relatively speaking) at the most RP-ish end of the spectrum who actually have their characters change and grow with the experiences they have. (Some of mine have done this—most notably, I think, Alanna—but others of mine have pretty much just stayed how they started.)

[Constantine]

Pointless, people largely will play the way that they find interesting.

Look at this from a different point of view now. People don't always make an informed choice of playstyle.
If you show a player that if he plays somewhat differently he will have more fun, he'll be totally up for changing.
I know this firsthand.

[Anaris]

Look at this from a different point of view now. People don't always make an informed choice of playstyle.
If you show a player that if he plays somewhat differently he will have more fun, he'll be totally up for changing.
I know this firsthand.

This is true of some players, but by no means all.

[De-Legro]

Hardly, I actually find this to be rather untrue. People aren't so much happy having stagnant characters, as frustrated that they are not in a position to do anything but make a tiny blip. Say,  for example, that I'm a duke of CE. I'm tired of the current stagnation that is going on. I decide to secede to make something happen. In all likelihood, none of the other duchies join me, CE declares war and calls in allies, and my new realm is dead in maybe a week or two. What's so fun about that? The entire continent is deadlocked, so nothing outside Tom throwing thunderbolts around is going to change this.

You misunderstand. I speak not of stagnation as in nothing to do, but stagnation as in no interest in the character growing or changing their personality. The stagnation of realm and action are entirely different matters only indirectly related to the RP nature of characters. Besides if 90% of AT where actually unhappy with the current situation something would change. Enough people are content with the status quo, or at least prefer it to their other options that it is kept locked into that state.

[Kai]

People just make RP excuses to be dicks in game.

[De-Legro]

People just make RP excuses to be dicks in game.

And some of us don't need excuses.

[Gabanus family]

You misunderstand. I speak not of stagnation as in nothing to do, but stagnation as in no interest in the character growing or changing their personality. The stagnation of realm and action are entirely different matters only indirectly related to the RP nature of characters. Besides if 90% of AT where actually unhappy with the current situation something would change. Enough people are content with the status quo, or at least prefer it to their other options that it is kept locked into that state.

Ultimately I notice that it even differs per char. If I look at my own account, I saw Aeneas change from a most honorable lord to something very, very different (hence his current title of Lord Torturer). I had him slowly change based on the things he witnessed and was forced to due out of a strong sense of duty (a constant factor for him, which actually forced his changed). In all honesty, I had planned none of that, that just happened.

Other chars change less, also because they don't experience things as heavy as Aeneas in this case. The stagnation of the realms are indeed an entirely different point and not always easy to change, on for instance EC and Atamara. But as you said, if enough people want the change you can get thing done. And I think you see this happen slowly atm.

[Shizzle]

Most people don't keep a logbook, so I think we just forget about what happened to our characters - and reinvent the past to fit our current needs.

But there's plenty of players who write for the Story rather than their characters. The Arundel family comes to mind

[GundamMerc]

The denial is strong in this thread :3