D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Aug 3, 2013 21:20:40 GMT -8
Yeah spinning off of Tentagil and Stu it might be nice to have a session where you MAKE the questioner firmly state what motivates her character and for that matter the other pcs as well. Then next session BLAM!! "but be careful with eggs.."
And hopefully before you know it your PCs will be singing "our GM is Great! Gave us the chocolate cake!"
Sorry drinking at the Champagne Palace and posting lead me to a Cosby derail...
But yeah ask them want they want, what they really, really want? (Alright I'm out when the spice girls show up...)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 3, 2013 23:18:21 GMT -8
I get the impression that what the original poster meant by 'character motivation' is the age old conundrum of any dramatic fiction. If you were to apply real life considerations when confronting a dramatic situation in real life you'd probably run away, or call the cops or whatever. The reason none of us get involved in car chases or stumble on conspiracies is because our motivations in real life (thus realistic and believable) are designed to insulate us from getting into exactly those sort of dramatic situations - because that shit is dangerous and usually kills Adventure/game design can't really solve that unless you want to play 'paper & paychecks' Aaron
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Aug 4, 2013 1:42:22 GMT -8
I think if your character is so at odds with the goals of the rest of the party that combats get derailed with meta-exposition about life the universe and everything then the problem is likely with your character, not with the game.
Have the character leave if they don't want to run with the group - and roll a new one.
If it continues to happen with new characters - then you have another problem entirely.
|
|
juberberry
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 132
Preferred Game Systems: Traveller, VANGUARD, Shadowrun 4, CP2020
Currently Playing: Traveller - rarely
Currently Running: Traveller, Shadowrun 4, VANGUARD
Favorite Species of Monkey: Ressus
|
Post by juberberry on Aug 4, 2013 4:09:40 GMT -8
Thank you very much everyone for your thoughts. You guys all rock. The introspective player just seems to really enjoy picking apart the motivation. She always goes along with the group decision but she really just derails the game for up to 30 minutes when she starts. I've been able to keep this in check in the past by crafting my own adventures. My adventures tend to have plot hooks that the players/characters more easily identify with I guess. I think my issue was trying to run a published adventure with an established group that isn't used to me presenting hooks quite like this. I was trying to use the hook that the published adventure presented when I should have been finding something more suitable to my players characters interests. My bad. I spoke with the player of the Captain yesterday and it actually wasn't my introspectioners fault. Essentially he had plot hooks he was interested in, he was trying to find a way to pursue them while still allowing the other players some agency (rather than just ordering them around as the captain). - His chief engineer insisted that they should return the wallet immediately - while the Captain felt it was important to wait and see who came looking. This was a rather heated discussion. Also she found the character of Gvoudzen a rather distasteful person. She can't stand a person who would steal from their employer.
- The captain asked the Aslan Psion if he could the thoughts of Gvoudzen and the curator to try and get a better handle on what was actually going on. The Aslan politely declined citing a personal code invading another persons mind without just cause.
Finally, the doctor started her motivational examination as he was trying to figure out how he might make use of the information she uncovered. When she mentioned "I don't get why we don't just send him on his way." the captains player decided that he was no longer interested in any of this plot.
From the captains perspective, it was causing way too much strife among his crew. From the players perspective he felt like all the other players were roadblocking him. Add to that the fact it was after midnight his time and he has to work the next day it led to the decision to just "dump the plot". As a GM in his own right - he apologized to me - but as a player he felt he made the right decision. So really it comes down to a GM fail LOL. (as it most often does) I have spoken with each player individually on multiple occasions. They are all personal friends to me as individuals as well as a group. I am always asking for feedback, and I am always open to adjusting my game (hence why I'm not strictly sandboxing anymore). None of the players are dissatisfied with the game in general I just think this plot hook may have been a wrong fit for my group, and I should have seen it.
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Aug 4, 2013 23:40:35 GMT -8
In general I realise a player can be annoying but I'd rather have a player that is annoying via introspection and RP... (like the usual discussion that ALWAYS comes up with prisoners in DnD like settings were some people dont want to deal with it, some want to get rid of the prisoner after interrogation, some want to keep him around cause its their responsibility and some want to deliver him to the authorities. This discussion ends up taking a whole session if you have more than a couple alignment steps different in the same group)... than to get buried down in minutia of tracking how much gold/credits they have and what they can buy by spending 2 hours going over the math and looking at the books for equipment.
Also, I understand she might not be easily satisfied but at any point in time shouldnt the other characters HAVE a motivation? So her asking could be easily answered no?
From the simple "I am just naturally curious" to the on-the-fly character development "Something similar happened to my grandfather and he never got the item back... this is personal for me! I couldnt help then but I will help now" or you know the ubiquitous "Cause this guy is paying us!"
|
|
|
Post by Skizzle on Aug 5, 2013 1:18:00 GMT -8
Hold on juberberry. Don't rush to blame yourself. You said she always does this, and unless your always is the same as my 16yo daughter's (actual meaning hardly ever), then she is the problem, not a problem.
The Capt acted, well, just as Mal might. He gets very pushy about "my ship" many times, so go easy on him.
Now HER. It sounds as if she does not enjoy the conflict. At all. Or, and as no one voiced this, and by no means take this in a literal sense but rather in the figurative one, she may be an attention whore. They come in all shapes and arguements. Just a thought. She does become THE center of attention.
Sorry if this seems pushy...it has been a long weekend here with bombings and protests and starving muslims (Indonesia).
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 5, 2013 4:04:28 GMT -8
+1 Skizzle Because I still get the sense from the OP that when referencing 'character motivation' it's more like 'dramatic motivation'. That's where there has to come a willing suspension of disbelief because 'dramatic motivations' very rarely stand up to close examination . . . what a protagonist does in a 'dramatic story' is frequently not what a person would reasonably do in 'real life' - but then there would be no story because there would be no drama. In Firefly/Serenity Malcolm would probably have cast his passengers adrift at the next planet rather than risk his ship and crew John McClane would have waited somewhere safe and secure until the proper police arrived in Die Hard Neo would have taken the blue pill in the Matrix Aragorn would have been pushing Boromir out of the way to grab the One Ring to end the War before it started Sam Spade would have said 'the money's not worth the hassle, I do easy jobs like affairs and divorce - go see the cops' What 'adventurer' in their right mind would go crawling in a dark beastie filled underground complex of uncertain origin when they could settle down learn to make baskets and at least hope to die of old age. Looking for consistent or coherent 'motivations' is like stabbing oneself in the left testicle with a blunt knitting needle - possible but unnecessary and painful. The interent if full of people who over anal-ize movies and do precisely that by questioning the legitimacy and believability of the characters motivations within the context of the dramatic story being told. This is bullshit because what sort of movie would you end up with - probably pretty visual eye candy with no real story like Peter Greenaways 'A Zed and Two Noughts' (fantastic 'at the time' but it hasn't aged well as it just comes across as an overproduced introspective hipster wankfest now) Aaron (an ex-Peter Greenaway Fan)
|
|
juberberry
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 132
Preferred Game Systems: Traveller, VANGUARD, Shadowrun 4, CP2020
Currently Playing: Traveller - rarely
Currently Running: Traveller, Shadowrun 4, VANGUARD
Favorite Species of Monkey: Ressus
|
Post by juberberry on Aug 5, 2013 12:19:36 GMT -8
That's a very good point in separating out "Dramatic Motivation" because that's just what it feels like when she gets going. Now my captain player definitely agrees that her starting in was "the straw that broke the camels back", but denies that it was solely her that caused him to react the way he did.
I think most days we have a decent balance and she generally follows the parties lead. She gets to have her moments and until the next time she waxes motivational we all have a good time. I'm learning different ways that I can address her issues without going through a long conversation during gameplay and all in all I have a good time too.
We'll continue the game in a couple weeks, where the Threnody will come under scrutiny of some rather big players in the Aramis system. Maybe some subtle inquiries by entities unknown in relation to Gvoudzen to give them a tip off. I have to decide what plot hooks I'll scatter in their paths like so many pennies.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 5, 2013 17:42:59 GMT -8
+1 Skizzle Because I still get the sense from the OP that when referencing 'character motivation' it's more like 'dramatic motivation'. That's where there has to come a willing suspension of disbelief because 'dramatic motivations' very rarely stand up to close examination . . . what a protagonist does in a 'dramatic story' is frequently not what a person would reasonably do in 'real life' - but then there would be no story because there would be no drama. In Firefly/Serenity Malcolm would probably have cast his passengers adrift at the next planet rather than risk his ship and crew John McClane would have waited somewhere safe and secure until the proper police arrived in Die Hard Neo would have taken the blue pill in the Matrix Aragorn would have been pushing Boromir out of the way to grab the One Ring to end the War before it started Sam Spade would have said 'the money's not worth the hassle, I do easy jobs like affairs and divorce - go see the cops' What 'adventurer' in their right mind would go crawling in a dark beastie filled underground complex of uncertain origin when they could settle down learn to make baskets and at least hope to die of old age. Looking for consistent or coherent 'motivations' is like stabbing oneself in the left testicle with a blunt knitting needle - possible but unnecessary and painful. The interent if full of people who over anal-ize movies and do precisely that by questioning the legitimacy and believability of the characters motivations within the context of the dramatic story being told. This is bullshit because what sort of movie would you end up with - probably pretty visual eye candy with no real story like Peter Greenaways 'A Zed and Two Noughts' (fantastic 'at the time' but it hasn't aged well as it just comes across as an overproduced introspective hipster wankfest now) Aaron (an ex-Peter Greenaway Fan) I don't agree about there being that much of a divide. We have plenty of real life examples of people who do the "right" thing when common sense or any, even slightly developed, survival instinct would tell you to do otherwise. People stand up to bruisers, stick up for the little guy with little to no gain for themselves, or; one of my personal favourites; run INTO the burning building.
The problem is that many TV writers (and some book) think that stupidity equals drama. It doesn't. That's weak ass storytelling at best.
GOOD storytelling has GOOD motivations for the characters. Motivations that are realistic and logical.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 5, 2013 19:23:32 GMT -8
+1 Skizzle Because I still get the sense from the OP that when referencing 'character motivation' it's more like 'dramatic motivation'. That's where there has to come a willing suspension of disbelief because 'dramatic motivations' very rarely stand up to close examination . . . what a protagonist does in a 'dramatic story' is frequently not what a person would reasonably do in 'real life' - but then there would be no story because there would be no drama. In Firefly/Serenity Malcolm would probably have cast his passengers adrift at the next planet rather than risk his ship and crew John McClane would have waited somewhere safe and secure until the proper police arrived in Die Hard Neo would have taken the blue pill in the Matrix Aragorn would have been pushing Boromir out of the way to grab the One Ring to end the War before it started Sam Spade would have said 'the money's not worth the hassle, I do easy jobs like affairs and divorce - go see the cops' What 'adventurer' in their right mind would go crawling in a dark beastie filled underground complex of uncertain origin when they could settle down learn to make baskets and at least hope to die of old age. Looking for consistent or coherent 'motivations' is like stabbing oneself in the left testicle with a blunt knitting needle - possible but unnecessary and painful. The interent if full of people who over anal-ize movies and do precisely that by questioning the legitimacy and believability of the characters motivations within the context of the dramatic story being told. This is bullshit because what sort of movie would you end up with - probably pretty visual eye candy with no real story like Peter Greenaways 'A Zed and Two Noughts' (fantastic 'at the time' but it hasn't aged well as it just comes across as an overproduced introspective hipster wankfest now) Aaron (an ex-Peter Greenaway Fan) I don't agree about there being that much of a divide. We have plenty of real life examples of people who do the "right" thing when common sense or any, even slightly developed, survival instinct would tell you to do otherwise. People stand up to bruisers, stick up for the little guy with little to no gain for themselves, or; one of my personal favourites; run INTO the burning building.
The problem is that many TV writers (and some book) think that stupidity equals drama. It doesn't. That's weak ass storytelling at best.
GOOD storytelling has GOOD motivations for the characters. Motivations that are realistic and logical.I disagree that many writers use 'stupidity equals drama' and I think that's an insult to many writers. Nor is drama limited to selfish acts of risk or bravery - that's a very narrow view. When the obvious choice is between an action of least risk and high risk we tend to take the course of least risk (economics game theory & cognitive psych judgement processing). Ethical and moral compulsion drives this decision making process as well in evaluating risk - ie: by not acting can I tolerate the burden of guilt: Freud would cite it as an triumph of the ego over the Id People who take high risks frequently do so because there are no other apparent options. The burning building example: simple the choice is let someone burn or risk going in and trying to save them. Circumstance, without the benefit of hindsight, limits the persons choices and motivates them to an extreme act. They didn't know the fire brigade was literally around the corner etc. plus people don't do these extreme acts regularly (like PC's) and in real life many of these acts result in PTSD or some other psychological or material cost that would make the person reluctant a second time around (so no sequels). Finally you are referencing real life and real life dramas - you cannot compare the motivations and circumstances of real life people to those of say 'The Avengers'.- we've got a God, a man in power armour, 2 trained assassins one from birth, a man that turns green and huge, a super solider and a mysterious organisation that operates out of a flying aircraft carrier : were does one find comparative real life correlates to account for the actions and behaviour of the protagonists? Not all writing is about the characters internal monologue much writing is using the drama as vehicle to explore a concept or illustrate an observation thru allegory with the characters being ciphers thru which to explore the greater story. That's not bad writing or lazy or poor it's writing for purpose that goes beyond simple character development. It is a big difference between playing an RPG and 'just writing a story' eg: Elric is a complex character not so much for his motivation but because his character is moving thru circumstances that are allegorical to real life events at the time of writing as well as exploring a certain philosophical outlook and a blunt counter cultural reaction to the fantasy tropes of the day. Elric is motivated by destiny and is pawn of the balance by virtue of being an aspect if the Eternal Champion - what makes Elric interesting is Moorcock using Elric as a cipher for a shared journey of exploration of moral and ethical ambiguity ie: chaos is necessary even if it can be 'evil' and so is 'law', the corrupted Melnibonisns were once noble and pastoral, good deeds sometimes require evil acts, the best weapon against evil is a greater evil (stormbringer). I'd hesitate to call Moorcocks writing poor or lazy or undeveloped . . . you may not like his stories but that sort of criticism would be unfounded and a limiting of the literary medium. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Aug 5, 2013 21:36:45 GMT -8
The Wheel of Time proves beyond any reasonable doubt that stupidity =|= drama.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 6, 2013 1:30:53 GMT -8
The Wheel of Time proves beyond any reasonable doubt that stupidity =|= drama. Is it good or bad I never read any of it? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Aug 6, 2013 4:37:40 GMT -8
Is it good or bad I never read any of it? Aaron The first volume is actually a pretty good village-boy-to-hero story, but if I were you I'd stay well clear of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 6, 2013 5:21:15 GMT -8
Is it good or bad I never read any of it? Aaron The first volume is actually a pretty good village-boy-to-hero story, but if I were you I'd stay well clear of the rest. I couldn't get past chapter 3 of the first book. I tried. I just couldn't do it. I know lots of people really dig the series but it just totally left me cold. JiB
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Aug 6, 2013 5:56:20 GMT -8
Sometimes players have weird idiosyncracies that pop out no matter what. These are things you basically just need to deal with. For example when I was running Pathfinder Society a lot, I had a player that always played the guy scared of getting into combat. He'd play a rogue and stick around the edges of combat barely getting involved, just looking for a chance to backstab. It didn't matter what he would play either. He played a Paladin once who rarely entered melee. Most of the time he'd shoot his crossbow.
What I'm dealing with right now is a player who is not satisfied with his character. He made a bard to compliment my rogue and then changed his mind that we aren't really partners then decided we don't have enough combat support so he turned his character into a monk instead of a bard, etc. That party unity, interwoven backstory thing I wrote in about is now shot because he keeps changing his mind about his character. You have to decide if this is something you can live with or not.
|
|