By virtue of actually paying attention in school, I managed to learn a couple of things. On of the things that I learned that has relevance to roleplaying regards characterisation. There are four ways we learn about a character in literature (or roleplaying game):
1) What they say.
2) What they do.
3) What others say about them.
4) What the author (GM) says about them.
The first two are, of course, the major sources of information. We know that Darth Vader is a bad guy because within two minutes of his appearance on screen he is seen throttling a starship pilot with his bare hands in his search for information. We know of his devotion to his "ancient religion" through the line "I find your lack of faith disturbing" (and, of course, the small matter of the Force choke that follows).
However, it's worth noting that these two are not exhaustive. At no time in episodes IV and V does Vader display any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Yet they are present (if one accepts the rather wonky Star Wars version of morality, anyway). Characters can lie about themselves, "That name no longer has any meaning for me...", or perform acts that are contrary to their natures to create a false impression (I can't think of a good Darth Vader example of this - but how about every TV show ever where the 'good guy' has pretended to be evil to get in with the "evil crew").
The third method of learning about characters is the least reliable, but it is important also. "I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father," tells us a great deal about Darth Vader, assuming of course that we know something about the Jedi, and also the BIG SECRET. We don't need to see Jabba in Episode IV to know all we need to know about him at that point: Greedo and Han tell us everything that we need to know.
The fourth method is the most reliable, but it should be used sparingly. The key here is that the author can never lie to his audience. The GM should never lie to his players. If we hear Morden telling Clark that he's going to be president (switching examples, I know), then at some later point we better not find out that it wasn't Morden at all, and that the writer just wanted to screw with us. (Or, rather, if we do find out that it wasn't Morden, there better be a damn good explanation why we heard his voice.) What this means is that if the GM tells the players, "he's a good guy", that character cannot at a later stage betray the characters, without laying out a huge road leading to that betrayal. (The GM can have an NPC tell the characters, "he's a good guy," and have that prove to be inaccurate, which is a tricky thing. It is important that players have a reasonable chance to tell which 'voice' the GM is using. NPCs can lie, GMs cannot, and nor should they deliberately try to mislead players, so no Aes Sedai obfuscation of the truth.)
(Oh, by the way, I want extra points for the use of the word 'obfuscation'.)
Now, the application of all this to roleplaying should be obvious. However, since I'm bored, here are a few thoughts:
When describing an NPC, the GM needs to be aware of which voice he's using. If he's telling the players what their PCs see, he should be using his 'GM voice'. Everything he says has to be accurate, as far as the PCs perceive it. If the NPC paladin wears spiked black armour, and comes charging out of the forest towards the PCs, a warcry on his lips, the GM can say that. However, if the NPC paladin wearing spiked black armour instead steps out of the forest limned in a halo of sunlight, the GM needs to say that. The impression it gives is totally different, but provided it is accurate, that's fine.
On the other hand, if one NPC is describing another, the GM has two characters to consider: the one doing the talking, and the one being described. The GM is providing characterisation for both, so needs to be aware of this. So, if the dirt farmer's brother was hanged on the say-so of the paladin, it is entirely appropriate for the GM to have him describe the paladin by spitting on the droppings of a passing horse and saying, "that's what I think o'that bastard." On the other hand, it is almost certainly not appropriate for the dirt farmer to explain at great length, and in the language of the court, how the paladin "resembles the fetid excretions from the deepest bowels of mine cattle."
As should be obvious from my last example, the words the GM uses are important. However, the words are important regardless of which voice the GM is using. If the PCs encounter a dirt farmer, the GM can probably characterise him more effectively by saying "you see a man dressed in homespun fabrics and dirt" than by talking at great length about the style of the man's hair, the particular pungency of the manure surrounding him, or anything else. By contrast, if the PCs are talking to a foppish nobleman, it's might well be appropriate to use words like tailored, coiffured, elegant and frightful. Basically, use the same sorts of words that that character might use in conversation: a simple man will use simple words, while a nobleman will pride himself on his erudition. (The thesaurus is your friend, but the use of lists is an even better friend.)
Finally, complex characters can be developed by showing a discrepancy between word and deed, between first impressions and later actions, and between what others say and what the GM says. Mal Reynolds in Firefly comments that "men of God make people feel guilty and judged." This is a true statement. So, in the villages where a paladin has passed, the reactions of the people may not be as universally positive as one might expect. If the paladin had a farmer's brother put to death, that farmer is likely to speak badly of the paladin, no matter of the brother's crimes. G'Kar can send a Narn ship to recover Catherine Sakai from certain death for no better reason than "why not?", and suddenly become something more than the simple villain of the piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment