[TML] The Perfect Character Design

[Tom B]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Knapp <magick.crow at gmail.com> wrote:

> You have WAY more experience GMing that I do! Thanks for your
> insights. Can I quote you on my website for the computer game design?
>

Certainly. I posted to a public forum so obviously the material is in the
public domain. But thanks for asking.


>
> >  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.
>
> Really this is why I want to change the names of the roles. I really
> want my computer game to be about THIS. I want my words to lead
> players and GMs in that direction of thought.


And I do appreciate the goal.


> >  So how would I state the job of Moderator or Major Domo?
>
>
> There is still the act of creation for the MD. (I sort of like that
> being backwards from DM!!) No matter how you play the game the MD
> (oops, medical doctor) does set the stage, if players walk off that
> stage then me must be light on her feet and change the stage but keep
> the feel of the world that he designed at the same time. There is an
> element of god the creator needed for any MD.


Take a page from the Bible... God created the Earth, populated it, then
largely left it alone and kept his interference to inspiring key people
rather than direct thunder and lightning stuff. (No, I don't mean to start a
discussion of if this is so, simply suggesting that model is the way to go -
you do need the God Creator, but you have to know when to let your creations
out into the daylight and let others play with them and add their own
thoughts and inspirations - we call them players).


>
> Mediator keeps reminding me of strikes. Words can be so hard at times.
> I wish I could just make up a new word and have everyone know what it
> means.


*Grin* If it were easy, this wouldn't be spawning so many different names.
:0)


> >  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.
>
> But in that same light would not each player have his own agenda? What
> keeps your group of player actors (character actors?) together?


That depends. One key aspect that I put a heavy focus on and that I've found
makes a sizable difference between a party that will play together well in a
campaign or one that may fragment is this: If you work intensively with the
players during character creation (I have seen some suggestions that also
encourage them to work with one another), help them define a backstory, and
tie them together strongly in common purpose from the very beginning at
conceptualization, you tend to avoid the worst of the multi-headed hydra.

If the GM wants to run a merchant campaign, but all of his players want to
do Merc stuff, misery might well ensue. If one player thinks he's going to
start a Merc company, another thinks he's going to explore new worlds, and a
third plans to make a profit playing the 2/3rds of Traveller adventures
which involve criminality and moral flexibility, then you might have a
clash.

If you talk together about what sort of game you want (merc, merchant,
explorer, independent troubleshooter, tramp freighter, etc) and come to a
group agreement, then the characters are built knowing the underlying common
theme to fill some of the key roles, then further tied together by GM and
player created interwoven background narrative, then you find that the
players may have individual sub goals, but they'll generally fit with the
overall group.

In every campaign where I have done this, success for mid to longer term
play has ensued. For campaigns where it was more potpourri and everyone
brought different archetypes and different goals to the table, the general
level of success is more variable - sometimes it works, sometimes not. I
find binding your characters together, with their input, at the very start
and making sure you are all going in the same direction in terms of overall
game thematic elements gives you a group vision.

Of course, younger players, a group of intractable and willful sorts with
individual agendas, or personality clashes between players can serve you up
some serious challenges. How you deal with that depends on the people, your
own limits, and your own social assets and skills. But in most average
player groups with one or two leaderly types (or people who want to get
particular things done) and a bunch more laid back types, you end up usually
having good success. The laid back types often care that they are doing
something but not so much what. The less laid back care a lot about what you
do, so get a couple of them into alignment with the GM on themes/nature of
campaign and they'll usually help the GM run with it and encourage the
others to get with the plan.

Group dynamics are always a challenge since each mix of personalities is
different. I have one group I referee that are long time gamers (oh boy, are
they). They can min-max and compare and contrast systems with the best of
them. And they've 'seen it all before'. How I GM them is very different than
how I GM a group of 'partially reformed' Diablo II and WoW players who only
have scant notion of RPG rules or tabletop game conduct. They get much more
freedom from the rules and similarly don't bring up rules points to me very
often. They also do things that you see in computer games (target is down,
must loot immediately!) so I have to gently wean them of those behaviours.
Every group is a different mix and a different challenge.

The best characteristics for a GM are patience and adaptability. With these,
most other challenges may be overcome.