Character first Vs Problem first
FredGarber:
You are correct: "I don't want to die." is not a reason to live. I feel it's not a Why. Why don't you want to die? (**). There are whole doctorates of philosophy (armchair and academic) wrapped up in the question "Is a human life valuable purely for being lived?"
I think it would be primadonna behaviour if they were playing with a Narrative style. However, by your example, they just weren't interested in Exploration of Character. It seems they were primarily interested in increasing their effectiveness to Step Up to the central Challenge of the game world : Can you and your group take the NPC's Loot? (by combat). By definition, a player can't pursue a Narrative Creative Agenda UNLESS they are exploring the moral choices overtly (not to say there can't be moral heft or story to a Gamist or Sim experience). When you tried to modify the central Challenge, so that they had to solve puzzles to get to the Loot, they weren't as interested.
It sounds like in the good roleplay session, you did your job too well in painting the the Setting as morally neutral. In my experience, if the Setting is described as one that rewards a moral code (*), then people will tend to build characters that are, overall, good. If the setting is one that does NOT reward a moral code, they will invariably create either antiheroes, or characters that become borderline antiheroes, measuring their 'goodness' by the most sociopathic of the group ( Well, I killed the Orc babies, but I didn't eat them like Larry did!) (**)
I do not find that people tend to make heroic (as opposed to antiheroic) characters, unless something in the game rules rewards that type of behavior. I find that many people use RP as a chance to act out their darker sides that would be illegal in real life, rather than a chance to take a high moral stance that would be impractical in real life, unless there are specific things in the System (including social contract) to encourage moral character behavior.
On the other hand, maybe I've just been playing with the wrong sort of people :)
-Fred
(*) Or at least pretends to have a moral bias, like D&D. Regardless of how you CAN play it, it's understood you're supposed to kill the dragons and rescue the princesses, and not the other way around.
(**) Which has to be a different question than "Why don't I want my game session to end." In a computer game, sometimes 'Because then I can't get high score' is enough to keep a player seeking the next challenge cycle. It translates In Character to "I am alive because I want to explore, and conquer more things...", which is what you were looking for. Try adding scorekeeping to your computer concept, and see if that helps keep you interested in not just farming.
Callan S.:
Thinking about it now, I'd really think if they are gamist and I'm laying down a puzzle for them to beat - even if that type of puzzle wasn't their exact cup of tea there would be some spark in responce. If they were gamist, someone laying down a challenge is on the right track even if the challenge itself isn't their cup of tea.
Quote
By definition, a player can't pursue a Narrative Creative Agenda UNLESS they are exploring the moral choices overtly (not to say there can't be moral heft or story to a Gamist or Sim experience)
Well by definition, a big ball of flame is not a zeplin. But the Hindenburg was a zeplin even as it crashed in a big ball of flame. Prima donna behaviour isn't nar, it's dysfunctional nar.
Though we don't have to get into an actual agenda - what I'm getting at is that, like your example of players like trying illegal stuff, they had a character in their mind who they enjoyed the idea it wouldn't take shit from no one (hell, weve all had that character in mind at some point, right?). Everytime the character indeed doesn't take shit (rather than run), it's a buzz. I'm saying doesn't take shit not in that his armour stat is high enough, but that he decides to throw down instead of run. Which way will the character go? I'm saying that's what they were into, but just for their own PC.
Quote
You are correct: "I don't want to die." is not a reason to live. I feel it's not a Why. Why don't you want to die? (**). There are whole doctorates of philosophy (armchair and academic) wrapped up in the question "Is a human life valuable purely for being lived?"
Well, no passion is a reason. Passion gives a reason for its existance about as much as fire gives a reason for why it burns - which is to say, not at all. Passion simply burns and burns. I may as well have had a crack addict as my protagonist and you say "I want crack" is not a reason to live. But passion or addiction (tautology?) just keeps going right through absence of reason. That's why I think it's suitable as a 'why'.
Also there's something incredibly arrogant in those doctorates, I feel "Oh, by the way, our little group has decided were able to determine if your reason to live is a reason or not! With it were apparently also able to decide the value of your life too! Who knew!?". It's like a left over from some religion, where there was the assumption of some grand authority figures scheme that everything must fit into. But without such a scheme, all it is is man against man, chanting that the name of their group grants means they do not merely ply and gnaw at their fellow man but instead fit some sort of galactic law. Classic dogs in the vineyard, where the characters assume and 'act under' a god and the players play knowing there isn't one in that imagined universe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page