[TML] The Perfect Character Design

[Tom B]

>
> When I think of a puppet, I think of Yoda. I think you have a point
> but the problem with character is that every person who has ever
> played and RPG will think in the same old lines that they have before.
>

I understand how challenging it is to get people to shed preconceived
notions.


> >  Also, when I hear Director, that comes with a sensation of a
> dictatorial
> >  overtone. I don't want someone to 'direct' my character. I want someone
> to
> >  place a scene in from of me and let me decide how to act my way through
> it.
> >  I've been railroaded along a few times in games (the capture your
> character
> >  can never escape, the villain you had no chance of catching, etc) and I
> >  thoroughly dislike it - more each time I'm subjected to it. I virtually
> >  never use such railroading on players. And the name 'director' conjures
> to
> >  mind that sort of preconceived idea of how things will go and attempts
> to
> >  force me to adhere to his storyline.
>
> What did that railroader call himself? Game Master? In any case, he
> was bad at the job.
> Other words.
> Dungeon master
> story teller
> Director
> Game master.
> Ref
> I can't say I really like any of them that much. Maybe coach, majordomo or
> god?
>

Dungeon master/Game Master/Director all suffer from that same feeling of
direction.
Story teller isn't bad, except it also has a little of this taint.
Referee sounds like he should be a balancer in an adversarial relationship
between two solitudes. The only example I can see that makes sense here is
'players vs. environment'.
God? Had enough of those GMing me to not be fond of it.
Majordomo? Hmmm. That might not be bad - it sort of implies custodian,
housekeeper, and maintenance man.
Coach? That sort of implies characters need some guidance. Maybe that is
true, but players don't always like you to point that out.


> The job is:
> writing the plot outline
> running the NPCs, Reffing, making the universe, coaching and god, all
> rolled into one.
> Is there some better name to capture this role?
>

That's one view of it. Let me advance another one, an alternate
approach/theory.

When I write an adventure, I use an MT-like nugget format. But I maintain a
web of loose connections between the nuggets. This allows the plot to unfold
as driven by the player's choices. Some nuggets never get seen. Others get
seen in an unexpected order. But the players are the driving force.

I've been GMing regularly (1-6 times a month) since about 1983 (I got into
RPing in 1981). Over those many hours of gaming and many campaigns, I've
probably played with about 40 or 50 players. My D&D campaign has seen up
towards 30 players and over 40 characters as it enters its 19th year.
Traveller, I've run in several multi-year stints (and some shorter ones)
over that same period, along with a few fits and starts at other games.

The lesson I've learned from willful, intelligent, imaginative,
knowledgeable and funny players over the years is this: The DM hasn't got a
story to tell. If he did, he'd be writing a novel and we'd call him an
author. The *group* has a story to tell. The players can't get the job done
by themselves and neither can the DM. Many times even good DMs lose track of
this for some period of time. Players don't like railroads, they like to
feel they control the destiny of their characters and their choices and
directions. They are not fond of being forced down a path that satisfies
some pre-construed notion of where a game is going that the DM has in mind
since he has a 'plot' to advance.

Especially as I and many of my players age (although we still have some new
blood in the early twenties to liven things up), the game becomes more about
telling a story and about character and the subtleties of interaction rather
than the coarseness of combat and dice rolling. There is still that element,
but there is far more depth behind it than two decades ago.

So how would I state the job of Moderator or Major Domo?
- To develop NPCs and run them, true to their motivations and limitations
(including having imperfect knowledge, blind spots, and making mistakes just
like the PCs do)
- To develop situations with those NPCs into which the PCs can choose to
inject themselves (or where, occasionally, the GM can inject them)
- To apply the rules of the game and a good sense of balance to adjudicating
the interaction of the players, the NPCs and their environment
- Always remember, with great power comes great and commensurate
responsibility
- Always remember that your players are a requirement for your world to have
life - they are the only ones who give it that life and take it fro being a
stale collection of stats on a page to being a living, breathing interactive
experience (the less you think of it as 'my world' and the more you think of
it as 'our world', the better off you are)
- Expect and depend on the players to go outside your pre-imagined
directions (mine do it daily...). Plan for that in general senses. This is
one of the reasons I don't overdevelop one particular plotline or encounter
or location. If i do, the buggers will probably find a reason not to go
there or to blow the place up. Make loose plans, outlines of how you want to
run an NPC in play or how a location should generally look and feel and then
learn how to fill in detail as you go. Get good at this and your players
won't know that every nook and cranny wasn't carefully planned out, even
when they abandoned your original storyline mid-path and went off after a
side quest as if it was all that mattered.

So what sort of title is appropriate to this role? Director, God, Game or
Dungeon Master? Nope. Referee? Maybe, still not perfect. Mediator - he who
mediates the player's interactions with the independent NPCs and the
environment? Perhaps. Majordomo - caretaker, fixer upper, planner, guy who
shows you around - maybe that too is a good choice.


>
> >  I prefer 'character' and 'player' to differentiate the two. And referee
> (or
> >  mediator would also work) for the GM. Referee implies someone applying
> some
> >  sort of rules to the game but not driving it anywhere according to his
> own
> >  notions. In fact, it implies a certain lack of a personal agenda.
>
> But there is an agenda, GMs spend many hours coming up with it. The
> job, as I see it, is to guild the player down the path while making
> them think they chose the path.


I'd argue that's a stage in a GM's career. Some never leave it. I've been
there. I think you can grow beyond that (or different than that since I'm
not sure beyond is a good term). You reach a point where you can lay the
world and some happenings and some NPCs before your players and let the
player's choices create the story.

They may decide to investigate the missing science vessel in the asteroid
belt. They may decide to stock up on Boonta Classic vidchips from the desert
world and hop outsystem to find a place to sell them that will be impressed
by seeing the youngest and only human winner of a powered skiff race. They
may decided to take a holiday at a resort. They may sign up with a mercenary
company. Then you can look at that situation, see what new tidbits of
information to dangle before them, and see which plotlines interest them.
The story they tell is largely theirs, as it should be since they represent
(N-1)/N of the people involved in the joint story telling exercise.

Leading your players down a path is fine for passive players that won't lead
themselves. But once players bloom into their full potential, they tend to
have dreams and ideas for their characters, goals and agendas, and they tend
to actively react to their environment. In that case, trying to lead them
down a path is a perilous choice because they may chafe at the attempt to
direct them. And really, if you present them with interesting options, they
should willingly lead themselves to one or more of them or suggest a brand
new interesting option entirely different - no need to get them to go down
your carefully laid path.

And from my observation, players generally prefer this. I don't have a huge
statistical sample with 40 or 50 players, but that's been my accumulated
wisdom over the years.


> Exactly what I think and thanks lots for the reading!
>

Thank you for bringing up the point and letting others speak to it.

Thomas B