 |
|
|
The Four Faces of the Role-Player
By Dariel Quiogue
In the beginning, there were Whack the Fighter, Medic the Cleric, Sneak the Thief and Zap the Mage. Then we discovered role playing.
Character creation and realization has always been one of the most engaging, challenging, and let's face it, oftimes frustrating aspects of our hobby. We're already doing much better than other groups I could name, but there's plenty of room to improve yet. I'd like to propose a round of discussions on our website concerning this topic, with all interested parties submitting articles which will be posted on the website for all to share. I'll start the ball rolling by sharing two ideas that have been knocking around in my head for some time now.
The 4 Faces of the Role-Player
If you look carefully at what players do during a game (including the character creation phase), you'll notice that each one manifests four different aspects or orientations; Internalizer,Externalizer, Tactician and Jester.
The Internalizer is the guy who asks himself, "Given this situation, how would my character feel?" His object in the game is to create a character with whom he can identify strongly, relishing the experience of living that fictional character's life. This is the person in us who gets to appreciate the elation when we defeat that last villain, grief over the loss of a companion, or dread when we face Cthulhu. The Internalizer likes creating highly detailed characters, often with elaborate personal histories that extend far beyond the span covered in the actual game; the more detailed the character, the more easily the player can "get into his shoes."
The Externalizer is the guy who asks himself, "Given this situation, what would my character do/say?" This guy concerns himself with showing others what his character is like - he takes care to speak "in character" and filters his action choices through his character concept. Example: "I am a paladin and I think it a cowardly act to use missile weapons, therefore I will not use my bow against my enemies even though I am an expert archer." The Externalizer is likely to create colorful characters, often drawn with broad bold strokes - that is, he tags them with identifying mannerisms of speech or other behavior that he can act out consistently, again and again.
The Tactician in us is what keeps our characters alive. Let's not forget that when we start delving into the pitfalls of this aspect. This is the guy who asks himself, "What's the best way to deal with my character's situation?" On creating his character, the Tactician starts defining what he wants his character to do well and directs all his design efforts toward that end. The Tactician in us is what tells us how to prioritize our character's skills and abilities, a necessary skill in any role-playing game.
The Jester is the one with the crazy ideas, the one who lives to make others laugh - or get laughs at others' expense. Like the Externalizer, the Jester creates colorful characters, but with a totally different objective in mind. It's not so important for the Jester to accurately project a concept, but rather to have his character say or do silly things whenever and wherever he can.
As players, we each have one orientation dominant. That orientation is the means by which we enjoy our games. However, confining our efforts to only that aspect is limiting our potential as role-players. I firmly believe that the real goal of role-playing is mutual entertainment - and that it is best achieved by balancing within us the Internalizer, the Externalizer, and the Tactician. Let's explore the good and bad sides of each aspect.
Internalizer:
The Good: The Internalizer is probably the truest role-player the way we define the word, because he takes such care to identify with his character. He is the GM's delight, because he is likely to create a character rich in detail and laden with lots of little plot hooks that can be woven into the main thread of the adventure for a richer story. He will take care to familiarize himself with the milieu of the game and design well-rounded characters, thus making his creations more believable.
The Bad: The problem with the Internalizer arises when he doesn't communicate with the other players. If the goal of role-playing is mutual entertainment, then it's not much use to other players if you can share every single feeling of your character but you're not letting it show in some way to the group. In other words, being an Internalizer without letting the Externalizer in you loose results in a solipsistic way of enjoying the game. Rather than have the pleasure of interacting with everyone, you confine your interaction with the GM, sometimes to the point that it seems your character is off on a solo adventure of his own rather than being a member of the party.
The Externalizer:
The Good: The Externalizer's character is loud and colorful, and by virtue of being so, memorable. When the Externalizer is really familiar with the milieu, he can help set the flavor of the game by leading the other players with the way he plays - specially with regard to dialogue, social protocols and such. Also, because the Externalizer has already defined how his character acts and sticks by it, he tends to take the initiative in situations where other players often hesitate.
The Bad: The Externalizer's virtue is being loud. Unfortunately, that's also his greatest potential to cause problems. The Externalizer can intimidate the shyer or newer players in the group by a) going over their heads, or b) hogging the GM's time. Imagine if the first time you ever joined an RPG, this group was playing something like Pendragon and some of the players spoke all their lines in archaic English; wouldn't your reaction be something like, "Holy (bleep), do they expect me to speak like that?" Now, this isn't really a problem, if you can get it across that doing such things is just a matter of personal preference; when you feel the Muse in you, then by all means go ahead, because it'll add color to the game, but when it's not, then just act normal, right? As to b), it's a matter of self-control and partly, GM pacing. Perhaps GM's could work out a way to apportion "air time" more equitably between players. (I'd be specially interested in any reactions to this ! particular point, guys).
The Tactician:
The Good: Like I said, this is the guy in you that keeps your character alive. The Tactician takes care to plan ahead; he identifies those crisis situations his character will have to deal with on a regular basis and works out a means of handling them. For example, if I'm designing a hotheaded samurai for a Legend of the Five Rings game, I know I'll be getting quite a few challenges to duels - so I know I should be prioritizing my iaijutsu skill.
Sometimes being a tactician involves judicious use of player information. In one Castle Falkenstein game, my character got into a situation where he had to challenge another PC to a duel. To do otherwise would simply have been out of character. Problem was, I, the player, had no intention of harming another PC! So I made use of another encounter with that PC to try and defuse the tension and so avoid the duel. The result - our characters got uproariously drunk together, and gave the other players a good laugh in the bargain.
The Bad: The player who lets the Tactician in him dominate to the exclusion of the other aspects ceases to be a role-player, but becomes a war-gamer instead. When every decision becomes based on tactical expediency, when every character is a walking tank or self-propelled artillery unit - i.e. hotshot mage - the player has begun to deny himself the richness of possibility being offered by our unique pastime.
Not only this, but the player can become a source of problems for the GM and his fellow players as well. Overly powerful characters can make the other members of the party redundant. On the other hand, a character that has been over-specialized in something may fail a vital task simply because he had very poor ability in that area.
The worst case is a Tactician who tries to "beat" the game by using player information or cheat on his die rolls or at character creation. I haven't seen this in our group, but we did have a problem player in my old one. He would declare an action, then when someone pointed out an undesired consequence, immediately retract and declare another, then insist that doing so was legal. It was a case of a player who never saw the real point of role-playing but continued to treat the thing like a competitive sport.
The Jester:
The Good: The Jester makes us laugh, and reminds us that what we do, after all, is just a game. Ever notice how we tend to remember the comedy relief portions of a movie? That's what the Jester gives us.
The Bad: Like the Externalist gone bad, the Jester can waste valuable time that could have been given to other players. The Jester also walks a fine line between providing the welcome comedy relief and utterly wrecking the atmosphere of the game (unless it's a comedy game like Toon), and can even get on the nerves of other players. There are even some - like one I know personally - who play for the express purpose of annoying others; a childish notion of role-playing that can get one decreed persona non grata by any gaming group (as that guy I knew did). Again, the Jester is very valuable, but only if reined in and allowed to come out in moderation.
Conclusion:
Well, there we have it. The four faces of every role-player. Which one do you show most often? Which one do you show least? Would it improve your playing if you altered your current balance?
 |
||
|
|