Welcome to Gaia! ::

While this might be your first reaction, just read through the post and judge afterwards instead. I intend in this thread to discuss the role of characters in a story and how they can be played to bring a nice RP to heights of excellence.


Basic functions
Characters have three major functions in a story. First and foremost their job is to further the story, secondly they draw the interest of people and a distant (and optional) third is comic relief. Naturally, some characters have these jobs to different degrees. An evident comic relief may not further the story at all and might not be very interesting either, but still serves a purpose that other characters do not fill. The character will disappear into the background a lot though since it needs to invoke interest to be valid.

In an RP, the players should take careful note of these jobs. It is easy, especially in an animé inspired setting, to take on the job of comic relief a little too much. A good RP character incorporates the two first to an equal amount and uses the third only when and if needed.

In this guild, we're pretty good at having the right amount of comic relief, but we have a focus on the characters that doesn't let us further the story very much. This has little to do with good or bad roleplaying, rather I would attribute this to the fear of puppeting (something I have already discussed and will not discuss further here).


The rule of "yes"
In any situation where we use improvisation, this rule is important. The rule of yes was created to make sure that a story doesn't become stuck and dictates that anytime someone suggests something, people should agree to it. This does not mean that everyone should drown themselves if suggested to, but rather that the subject of aquatic suicide should be discussed for a while. Also, people could agree to it for a shor while only to change their minds.

There is one semi-invalid sentence I would like to warn people about. It's the magic "My character would never..." which is bad in many ways. If it furthers the story, it should be done. The rule of yes is more important than anyones character. One can let the character be sceptical about it and even offer a small resistance in the beginning, but just saying plain no will effectively put a stop on the story.

There is one important exception though, and that is when a character is not required for a plot to function. A good example would be the outing on the rooftop that subsequently led to an adventure in the forest. Everyone on the rooftop did not follow into the forest, but the suggestion (in the form of an action - jumping off the roof and running into the forest) was still followed up. That some people didn't get the experience of having been there is of no consequence, they will get the chance to be in another adventure.


Playing vs. Protecting
There is a big difference between playing and protecting a character. A lot of people defend the actions of their characters and try to paint them out as "morally good" people. In the event of doing something not so moral, it is explained by a warped sense of reality or a different culture or some other such pseudo-psychological nonsense. There is, in a vast majoroty of cases, no need to justify the actions of your character. "This could be an interesting plot twist" or "This could be fun" are just as good reasons for doing things as "She was mentally abused for several years, learning to only eat whilst throwing food".

This also applies to the magic "My character would never..." which actually is bullshit. The character might have a hard time doing it and the character would generate a lot of guilt whilst doing it, but actually doing it is often not a problem. In some extreme cases there might be options, but I do not recommend them.

An example: Character X and character Y are in a situation where X tells Y to kill character Z. Z is an NPC so it's not vital that Z survives, but it might be a solution to the situation they're in. A correct behaviour would be to adress the issue of killing (not just saying that it's wrong, but actually having second and third thoughts) and then kill the person. Y could offer up a different solution to the problem, but that would be ignoring the rule of yes. If X does the same they could theoretically be stuck forever in a loop of suggestions where nothing happens. Still, offering a different solution might work if it is discussed with other involved parties, but then it isn't improvisation anymore and the rule is void.

This brings us to the subject of change. Don't feel afraid to change your characters. After all, people do change and a true pacifist that has to kill someone will most likele not be the same afterwards. These changes are important and make up a vital part of the character, making them seem more human. A character that doesn't change will eventualy become boring and won't feel very human at all.

At Windsor, the students are required to change - it is the very meaning behind them being there. They're there to learn things and to experience things, things that will potentially change them.


I have more things to say, but right now I have to go to work. Feel free to comment with constructive criticism. I promise to not become too defensive, even if you do. wink

Yes, and if so that character has two functions. Comic relief is a way to take some focus away from the seriousness and let people laugh for a little while. A great example is Penpen from Neon Genesis Evangelion. He has little value apart from the fact that it's funny to have a penguin for pet. You will notice that as the animé grow darker, we see less of Penpen - no more relief from the seriousness is wanted. Characters that have no other function than comic relief are rare and disappear quickly in a story.


It has the potential of progress, but it isn't actual progress if it doesn't follow up on previous thoughts. Let's look at the Squirrel example.


No, he has stopped it. The headmasters order had some kind of plot element behind it and by refusing to hook on that element, Squirrel kills off the plotline. It can be revoked again, but if Squirrel continues to ignore it, it will eventually become impossible to revoke again.

Let's say that the headmaster tells Squirrel that he must go down to the village to deliver an ornate dagger to the blacksmith. Squrrel decides to ignore this and walks off to the library instead to get some homework done. The plot will be on hold while he does this and it will die quite soon, especially if he continues with daily business and ignores the mission. If he wants to take things onto a different path he could instead choose to walk down to the village, but decide that he needs a mug of mead before finding the blacksmith. At the tavern he gets into a fight and the dagger is pilfered by some shady character. He still hasn't delivered the dagger, but he has followed the storyline.

The basic thing with the rule of yes is to avoid a situation where someone takes an initiative and is ignored, then someone else takes an initiative and is ignored, and so on. This might very well add lots of content to the story, but it really won't further it.

There are no static elements. Items are gained and lost, just like allies and enemies, and suddently the paladin looses an arm in battle (or just starts eating and becomes fat).


I like a good flogging...


Exactly. This is change and it's vital to any character and story. One should always try to tell the story from the characters viewpoint, but also allow the story to change the characters.


Yes, but the problem lies in that different people value the plotlines in different ways. I don't value the shard plotline very much since I'm not a part of it, but it's still a good (and unresolved) plotline. If I work myself into that plotline it would become more important to me.

As for Windsor Academy, we don't have a clear main plotline yet. I know that this is being worked on, but until we have that focus all plotlines are more or less just floating around. This makes it difficult to further the story since we have to agree on what plotline is most important to actually further the story as opposed to just adding content.


This assumes that people still further the plot. The dragon could be ignored totally and people could just care about eeryday stuff. Then the dragon wouldn't come, because noone would write about it. In fact, after a while someone could even write about "that dragon and its army we fended off a while ago" and with those few words the whole dragonplot would die.

If the character refuses to aid the teacher, two things happens.

A) the spell isn't researched (which will have an effect on the main plot outcome)
B) the spell is researched anyways. (ditto)


Again, assuming that other people further the plot. If not, nothing will happen.

PBF (Play By Forum) is a form of roleplaying that allows for a contemplative improvisation. The participants get a lot of time to choose the answer and can adjust things with more care than is possible in, for example, invisible theatre (a type of political theatre where the audience doesn't know its an audience). This amount of control can, to a lesser degree, help overcome the problem of a story not being furthered, but it is by no means an absolute insurence.

Let's take the book "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" for example. It is a quite thick book with a very good language and lots of content, but the story is furthered at a very slow pace and most of the time it seems that the writing was more important to the author than the story. This makes it enjoyable to read for a while, but once you've had your fill of the language you start wanting to have some more plot.