| Author | Message | ||
     Heather (Illusion) AMRN Staff Username: Illusion Post Number: 3390 Registered: 2-2001 Rating: N/A |
(Found this in Google cache too.) -Heather ----------- By Macross '51 GM (Ironside) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:44 pm: Edit Post Ive always felt that there was somethingEnot wrong per se, but perhaps not quite right about our focus on character background, in the process of bringing a character into the AMRN. Perhaps it is simply me, but Ive often found my most enduring characters were little more than character sketches who came to life during play. Lately, the hammering out of character backgrounds has done little to add spice to the characters Ive created, and I begin to wonder if all of you arent suffering a similar malady. Perhaps the overall decline of new blood has been a result of the same. It is understandable, to an extent. People want things easy. People dont want to do hard AND tedious work as gateway to fun. Most have hard and tedious JOBS or COURSES that the put up with so that they can afford to have fun latter. Most of us feel weve paid our dues already, why should we give more blood sweat and tears to the AMRN? Im not saying we should hack character background out of the application. As much as it seems to be a pain to the new comer, it IS important that the GM know where you come from, and know how you got where you are, in order to help determine where you are going. But there are two key words in that last. HELP and YOU. The GM/Storyteller is not there to determine your future. Thats up to you the Player/Actor. The GM helps by figuring out how your actions effect you and the world (and how that result differs from your intent). It seems to me that the past is not the most interesting thing about your character. Indeed, you characters FUTURE probably is very interesting. At least not in comparison to the characters PRESENT. Read a good book, or watch a good movie. The most important thing about your character is often not a style, or affectation or history or destiny. The most important thing about the character is what is happening NOW. Die Hard, for example. Does it matter that John McLean went to Catholic school? Do we know how he felt about his father? Do we know if he has any siblings? Would knowing any of that make him a better character? All we need know about Johns history is that he is a New York cop. He is married and has two kids. He is having marital problems due to his wifes career success, but he thinks it worthwhile to cross the country to visit his estranged wife to try and patch things up. This is all of the background we get on John, before he the first conflict of the movie. Of course, in that conflict we learn that John is stubborn, hard headed and given to letting his mouth run off before his brain catches up. He manages to tick off Holly almost as soon as he reunites with her. We also learn that he doesnt like that aspect of himself, at least as it relates to Holly. We are shown that he Loves his wife, and honestly wants to find a way to patch things up. (We also get a bit of that from the driver, Argyle, amateur analysis). But there is difference between the last paragraph and the one before it. One is about WHO John McLean is, the other about WHEREEhe came from. I think it is clear that the Where is only used to help set up the movie, and put the hero in the conflict. The action is moved by McLeans stubborn, bullheads, leap before you look personality and his intense love for his wife. McLeans motivation is nore important to the success of the character the his history. The history could be totally rewritten to give McLean a different background, as long it support his personality. Change his personality and the move becomes something completely different. (of course changing the actor would also hurt Die Hard, but thats minor when you consider the synergies. A lot of who McLean is was informed by the producers and directors desire to let the actors define their characters. McLean is partly who he is because Bruce Willis was a kid from JerseyE The Whole Hans Meets McLean scene was born of (British Actor) Alan Rickmans entertaining people with his California accentEbetween takes). The history does have its place. Batman would not be Batman if his parents werent murdered. But Motive is MORE important. Bruce Wayne could have been inspired to avoid nightlife, and alley ways, shunning humanity for fear that the might hurt him. Instead he vowed to avenge his parents and make criminals pay. There are exceptions, of course. There are many enduring characters who have no motive. But they tend to be second teir. Mickey Mouse, Wonder Woman, the cast of Suddenly Susan, the Huxtables; all of these were successes, but do they have power of the real endurers? Batman wants to keep his childhood vow to avenge his parents. Superman wants a world to call his own. Dr Doom wants to prove he's the world's greatest intellect. Bugs Bunny wants to be left the hell alone. Xena wants to make up for her past as a bloodthirsty warrior queen. Darth Vader wants his son to join the family business for his own protection. George Costanza wants the affection and respect of others even if it's an illusion. Sherlock Holmes wants distraction from the chaos of his own awesome intellect. Even Dr. Henry Jones, Jr has a motive, though it isnt often apparent. His motive can be summed up in very simple terms (his own words); THAT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!E Perhaps we should spend less time asking after character histories, and spend more asking that age-old actors question; Whats my motivation?E This has been an editorial. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the AMRN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Heather (Illusion) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:42 pm: Edit Post YAY! That was a great editorial!! I agree wholeheartedly. I once invited my brother, a long-time message board roleplayer, to play on the AMRN. He was completely turned off by the character sheet. "I learn about my characters while I'm playing them," he said, and gave me an example from one of his longest-running characters. It was something like, his character had a personality quirk to where he followed a certain tradition, but my brother had never figured out why until a week before he thought of joining the AMRN. All those years of playing the character, it had just been an unquestioned personality trait, until the story made it mean something more. He always knew his characters' motivations. He always had a concept. The meat came out in roleplay, and that's why it was fun for him. It was that way for me, too, really. Sometimes I would write a character sheet that ended up not making much sense after I'd played the character for awhile. Sometimes I would create an NPC, with just the basic information about them, and they would become more robust than a character I'd spent 12 pages (or whatever) on. (For example: Mindy Clark was far more engaging to me than Rebecca Meadows. [Collective voice of the AMRN: Who?]) My writing classes taught me similar lessons. Sometimes you just have to write. The story will come out as it will. You can't always plan everything beforehand. It's good to make character sketches, so you remember little details like eye color, and so you can stay in character. But if you plan out everything beforehand, the magic is gone and you have no impetus to actually write the story. So yes, I agree with making "What's my motivation?" the driving question of character submission. (Not that my opinion really matters, since I don't even play here anymore, but hey.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Lodoss Grandmaster GM (Ashton) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:03 pm: Edit Post I agree with you to an extent, but this idea poses a significant problem with the mechanics of the system. What I mean to say is, by The Window system, most(if not all) of someones skills come from the background they write. Look at the interview between the storyteller and the player as they make Dr. Jenner, if that were not there, then what justification would he had for some of the things on his sheet. I personally do not like elaborate character backgrounds, as they are a pain to write, but since this particular system does kind of want them, it does present somewhat of a conflict of interest. How does one justify the things they know at the level they know them without explaining how they learned them in the first place? So I guess what I am saying is, yeah the idea of character backgrounds isn't perfect, but how could we change this to the "what's my motivation" idea, and still maintain the integrity of the system we are using now, so as to keep people from loading up on a lot of high level skills without a good enough reason why the have them, without simply saying "no, you can't have that because I say so". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Macross '51 GM (Ironside) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:24 pm: Edit Post I thing Backgound still counts. For exactly the reasons you said Ashton. A good character is partly defined by its background. I just feel that the criterion is too background focused. The Background should support the personality, not the other way around. I think Heather's points are strongly valid. I suspect a few paragraphs can give all the info you need to know to support the Window's system. If you look at the beginning of the Window example, the Actor knows WHO Jenner is. The Storyteller helps the Actor fill in some information that helps the Actor place that WHO in the context of the story. Back to the Die Hard example, for the Story ee know WHO John McLean is. A hard headed Jersey boy who loves his wife, a bit of traditionalist about marriage roles, but deep in the core, Holly is more important to him than his own well being. His Background helps to put that guy into the setting of a hostage stituation in an LA highrise, and explain why he has a gun, why he knows how to use that gun, and why he can do a few of the other things he does (his skills). There's a temptation to paint too much into a background. I think we should focus on the WHO, and the What, and help the Actor build the minimum background need to support that. That doesn't mean half assed background. A minimum, but well thought out, background can be powerful and inspiring while leaving room for the character to grow. (Message edited by ironside on March 18, 2005) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Macross Storyteller (Mr_justice) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:03 pm: Edit Post Rebecca Meadows was the mayor of the Arcadia Colony, right? ;) I don't think The Window necessarily requires the type of in-depth background we've typically required in character sheets in the past. I see The Window requiring enough to justify the minimal stats and skills and to get a "flavor" for the character. Overall, I thought the example on The Window website did a good job of highlighting "what's my motivation," without drawing it out too much/requiring too much work. For the most part, the editoral has a certain first-impression resonance with me. But, at the same time, truncating character histories, in my mind, has a certain drawback, namely that detailed histories give structure and motivation to players who can't answer the question, "what is my motivation?" It also gives a framework for players who ask, "what is a motivation?" The brutal truth is that some players don't even bother with the question, instead, opting for one of the "templates" which plagued my e-mail in-box during my Academy Administrator days. "He's 6'4", very attractive, has green eyes. He loves flying and winning. And motorcycles. And girls. He's committed to the Spacy at all costs. His parents died when he was very young, so he never knew them. He's a natural born pilot." They post a few one- and two-line posts when there isn't any action. And then they post four- or five-line posts with an Action list during combat. *sigh* As to how to strike a balance, vis-a-vis Ashton's question, I think the mantra should be two-fold: what's the justification? + what's my motivation. I like writing character backgrounds, because I like to write and I like to "live" that character's past to get a better feel for who they are starting right out of the gate. I like to allow my characters to "grow" but maybe not as much as I should. ;) Anyway, I think longer character histories have their place and I'm a fan for sure. But if this discourages new blood, then by all means, let's find something easier that does not completely sacrifice the need for justification and motivation. For whatever that's worth, two cents or otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Macross Storyteller (Mr_justice) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:05 pm: Edit Post Ironside, your latest post popped up while I wrote mine. I agree with your points there. I think they better encapsulate what I tried to express. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Heather (Illusion) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:59 pm: Edit Post Mr. J- I challenge you to remember one single thing about Rebecca Meadows' personality! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Really Nice Guy (Reaper) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:48 am: Edit Post What is there to remember about a skank? BURNED! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Heather (Illusion) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:14 am: Edit Post Yes. You burned me. Shall I lay in a course for Heatonia, Captain? |
