A couple of posts back I referenced the Hero's Journey with respect some movie comparisonsand as a marker that most often the traditional approach is the best approach. It wasn't really used in terms of rpgs themselves.
It did however start me off thinking about it in those terms. It doesn't really matter if one agrees with the concept itself (and there's a lot of baggage there to agree with if one goes down that path), the simple truth is that the concept has influenced story-telling and many of the movies that have impacted what people expect in adventure settings.
I wonder if some of the common issues found in rpg campaigns are an outgrowth of this.
For example, it is very common in such arcs for the Hero to at first refuse the call to adventure (which means something in most fiction and movies than it does in that wkki article).
To use the previous movie examples: Star Wars' Luke refuses to go with Obi Wan until the death of his uncle and aunt, the new Star Trek movie sees Kirk starting out rejecting Star Fleet until convinced by Pike, and The Matrix's Neo is dragged kicking and screaming into his adventure before really accepting it.
Using that for a template, I wonder if many players don't unconsciously set their character up for the same dynamic. But since it's unconscious, the player can't state his intent or even what he's looking for. The result leaves the GM feeling as if the player is rejecting his campaign and adventure.
Thus we get all the online exchanges about this problem, and what to do with it. And I wonder if people are missing the point. Perhaps the player is only trying to emulate favored heroes, but neither he nor the GM has thought through what that means or needs.
I haven't dealt with this problem myself (or if I have, I managed it without notice), so I don't know if this is a possible condition let alone a common one.
But it was a possibility that occurred to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I think you are very much correct.
One particular way this can manifest in play is that someone wants to play a character who is always tricked to get into adventuring or other interesting events. It can work if the player shares this with other players and the GM. Otherwise, there'll just be one GM getting more stressed than necessary.
thanuir: I've heard of that dynamic, but it seems slightly different from the source material in that the players wants to be repeatedly drawn into the adventure.
The classic method is for that to be needed only once, generally early on.
This is different enough that I think it must come from a different source although I have no idea what.
I've told other people before games that I want people to create characters that will accept the call to adventure. While some initial reluctance to go on an adventure is OK, I think having to constantly coerce the characters into going on adventures, at thanuir mentions, is not only stressful but just plain annoying.
Have any of these players indicated why they wanted to be (in effect) forced into playing before each adventure?
I can understand it at the beginning of a PC's 'career', but not later.
I think that in most cases, the problem was that players came up with ideas for interesting characters that they wanted to play without necessarily considering if they were good role-playing characters that would play well with others or be likely to go along with the sort of game that was intended. The problem seemed to be worse with the players who didn't also GM, perhaps because they weren't looking at the big picture.
Gleichman;
Consider some episodic media; TV series, say, with some character who would be completely happy just living out their life. Maybe it is some old and grumpy "leave me just along"-kind of character that the others persuade to come along.
I'm very bad at following contemporary popular media, so I'll give Tarzan books as something of an example; most start with something nasty happening to or at his home in the jungle so that he starts fixing it or seeking revenge. End of the book brings back status quo, usually.
On the side of roleplaying games, consider an adventuring party that takes on a sequence of discrete adventures (maybe with an overarching goal, maybe not).
I would call such things by the tradition series name, the 'opening hook' where the adventure comes calling.
I can't off hand think of any examples of series characters (after the first adventure or two) trying to reject it.
But perhaps you have some examples?
"I would call such things by the tradition series name, the 'opening hook' where the adventure comes calling."
I can't parse this sentence, sorry. (English is not my native language.)
Would this: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/jameswallisruined1.html and the reply here: http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/jameswallisreplies1.html constitute an example of what you're talking about?
thanuir:
You can start with this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(rhetoric)
That same concept applies to all performing arts- music, TV, etc. In TV it's the opening couple of minutes designed to 'hook' the viewer into watching if at the of the last show (called the lead in) they would normally be inclined to change channels.
@Wolfboy: Your links don't work for me.
What about the article "James Wallis Ruined My Character's Life and Wallis's reply
Did that work?
This is an excellent point--and very well said! I've seen players "roll to dodge the campaign" before and been mystified--but this theory has a great deal of merit.
I am reminded of a story wherein a player was playing RE's Trollbabe with his wife and using what I think is the opening scenario wherein the PC sees a snow-cat of some sort wounded and being hunted. The theory is that the PC will get involved in protecting the innocent snow-cat but the guy's wife just continued on to the non-adventure.
My first game with her where I was the GM involved similar behavior (reluctance to engage with /anything/ that wasn't either plainly a mission from a commanding officer or combat).
So for my next game I started with guidance on how the PCs would engage with the opening plot-hook. This wasn't especially heavy handed (you must go, check it out, and give it a fair shot--then you can decide whether or not to continue) but it paid off very well.
I now think that sort of thing is a best-practice: makes sure you're on the same page with the players as to what will involve them in the game.
Interestingly, D&D--even the later volumes--did this so well it was pretty much invisible to almost everyone: it's a bit hard to start playing and not know that if you hear of a dungeon you're supposed to go have a look.
It's also wonderfully clear that going it alone is going to be remarkably tough ... I mean, the game's genius in how it sets expectations and executes a need for teamwork, etc.
-Marco
Wolfboy: I don't think those articles relate much if any.
It seemed rather a case where the player had one goal that he enjoyed, and the GM had his own adventure that he just had to run.
There was also a serious disconnect in how the campaign world was viewed.
Marco: That's certainly one way of the dealing with it.
However rather than getting agreement with the player to avoid it, I think I'd rather get agreement with the player on how to engage the 'refusal of the call to adventure' such that both the player and the GM are happy with the result.
Post a Comment