Thoughts on character and maintaining interest, Please, please, read and respond!

Mol and I have just been talking about the reasons most RPs die. Part of it is (IMHO) that sustained gaming isn't possible for long. No matter the subject, interest will die. In most of our games, not only is the GM vital to maintaining the game but so are the characters. That means that if a player drops out, the game lags as we all wait for him. Especially if he is playing the CO. This is of course a GM problem too, and I'll get back to it, but for the moment I'm thinking of the players.

Thought: Part of the lag is, perhaps, that we are reluctant to take over another player's character. Particularly if, like my own Corporal McNeill, he has inspirations and a playing style all his own. I wouldn't want anyone else running him because they just wouldn't do it right!

This means that if I drop out and, say, McNeill is carrying the story's McGuffin, everyone else is screwed.

But what if we went with more generic characters? For example:

Sgt Smith: Grizzled, tough but fair.
Tpr Jones: Green teenager.
Tpr Brown: Cigar-chomping heavy.
Tpr "Burnaboy": Pyromaniac.

Take a bunch of character archetypes, assign one to each player. If a player drops out, someone else can play that character -- without having to know the character inside and out. These would remain customizable (the player might pick the name, for example), but it would be an exercise more in playing than in designing your character. Which I think we tend to lean towards. How often do we as players experiment with new character types?

As for the GM, there is the possibility of making the game thoroughly episodic. The GM picks a target for the players; once they reach it he switches out with one of the players while someone else carries on.

The sum total is that when players inevitably drop out (because SOMEONE has to quit first) it isn't as hard to pick up the slack. As they say in KODT, "The game must go on!" Would this make it easier?

I'm not sure I agree with you entirely. Granted yes its very difficult and sometimes intimidating to run someone elses character especially if they have been doing an fantastic job bringing that character to life.
Another thing I have to disagree with is that sometimes its fun to create a specific character that defies preset molds and is entirely your own.
I do like your suggestion that the GM make the games episodic. It give more flexibility to the roster, you could add/drop characters in between episodes and give players and GM alike a chance to take a break from the game without having to worry about killing it.
Thats my two cents folks.

I agree completely. I'm not saying we should completely switch over. Also, being able to make your own, special character often ensures that you'll stick with the game. But if/when SOMEONE drops out... you have a problem.

Now if we weren't so attached to our characters that we could easily let others (even if just the GM) play them, this wouldn't be a problem. But one of the things that makes personal, unique characters so special is that they are being played by a player who literally knows him inside and out.

Another thing to think about is the military, hierarchal structrue of the typical party in our games. There's often a leader, medic and so on, and if suddenly a specialist is needed and he's not there, the game breaks down. This is not his fault, it's just a bug of the system, that it can't sustain the loss of one or two members of a four- or five-man party. If the story is heavily plotted so that everyone has a part, or the party has broken up for some reason, you're in real trouble.

I disagree on making generic characters. I mean, yeah, it is a good idea for SOME characters to be taken by others when the original player burns out, but having a whole team of generic characters seems to me like a bad option.

On the other hand, stories by episodes sound far more interesting to me. I remember doing A Time To Kill, A Time To Die with the fact that I burn out easily in mind, and thus made it a very short story. In fact, so short people didnīt like it when I ended it...

I had in mind that, when I ended that story, I would change the scene to a different regiment, with new characters and, perhaps, players. That is, running two roleplays in tandem, an episode of RP 2 taking place after an episode of RP 1, and then having the actions of the two groups influence the setting of the other group (like taking a supply dump would allow the characters in the other group to upgrade their equipment).

I just havenīt gotten around to doing RP 2. I think that if someone offered to be the next GM...



So, in my opinion, making stories throughout short chapters, then letting someone else take the place as GM sounds far better to me. Of course, there are certain kinds of roleplays where this kind of thing doesnīt quite work (I canīt imagine Valthor working like that), but for the most part I think that short RPs would be more succesful than long RPs if instead of trying to make a long RP right out of the hat, we take our time to play episodes out, see how the story and the characters evolve, and decide the course of action from there.

I think that GM's almost need a deputy GM who is able to help out if RL strikes or other issues arise. I know that Hound has been helping out Jacobus and Seato has helped out invaluable every time I go away on holidays. Maybe this needs to be used more often to ensure that the game does go on.

I'm intending to run a series of episodic RPs. The first is underway right now. After that's finished, I'll have a bit of a break, something that will be needed by both players and GM. Then I will continue the history of St Jasmine's Hope, with the same characters if they still wish to be in it or new ones.....

I think perhaps one way to make things episodic would be to "break down" a campaign, as for example we did with the sector SRPs. Here, each game is set during a separate period or separate area. John Ringo's Aldenata and Harry Turtledove's World War series are good examples -- both are set on Earth in the midst of an alien invasion, but different books and chapters focus on different parts of the world during the same time, showing how different countries react to the same threat. I would love to do something similar; we could even use 21st-century Earth as a template. If we were actually some other world, 40k years from now, with present technology, could NATO and the UN withstand an Imperial Crusade? First we might see what would happen when Valhallans assaulted Moscow, then switch to the Middle East where Tallarns face off against the IDF and Arab Legion.

I seriously considered running a naval SRP this way -- The first game would be set in M30, the next in M31, and so on, but all games would be set in the same sector. So that in the first, the players would invade and capture a sector for the Crusade, the second they would deal with the Horus Heresy, and so on -- thus creating a history for the sector.

This can be done on a small scale just as well -- In the same battle, spread across many square miles, there is more than just one story to be told. After driving a tank during an armor assault, the players can switch to the infantry who follow up.

So this might be another way to break games into smaller, more manageable chunks. Thoughts?

Yes, one. When are you starting the naval RP?

I thought people would react negatively to this. The simple fact is that some of the 'old guard' need to resist 'old habits' if we're to make DI active. And I want to do whatever is necessary to make DI active.


Some people have complained about the lack of finished games. Even as far back as the CYOD, I remember Company Medic would disappear for ages, then come back and wrap up the game in a one-post "you get transported back to the base, medals all around, I'll put the roll call up for CYOD 8 next week!" round-up.

Jen made the good point that enthusiasm comes and goes. Part of the problem of doing it online is that the "one-month-on, next-month-off" thing becomes more apparent. On a forum, the game is always "on." Whereas in a tabletop game, you have concentrated hours of gaming broken up by a week of none at all. Arguably in a few hours of round-the-table gaming, you get more accomplished than in a month of forum roleplaying.

Sometimes you have nothing happening, and then you have times when every player is posting rapidly and regularly. Although that's not easy to sustain.

Roleplays not finishing is not just a GM problem, especially when you delay an update for that super-vital post from that vital player. Which is why I said "we need games, but we don't need games that ultimately collapse." - if I know it's not going to go anywhere, I don't want to start it. Perhaps a key is to have short-burn games, short like the episodes of TGWS short... or perhaps a it longer?

Jen suggested this:

Of course, that depends on how big a pause there is, and how players dropping/arriving in each pause are handled.


We've always seen it as uncouth, dirty to swap or share characters. And yet actors manage to do it. Drakkar says that they're 'generic' - not necessarily. A character can be made deep and interesting without being owned by one person. Surely you have to agree to that?

The point I made is this:

Assume you have a game with five players: Sgt A, troopers, B, C, D, E

Traditionally in a DI game, Player B would want out, or disappear. The GM kills off character B. Player F comes along and wants in, so he makes character F, and the GM has to contrive a way to get character F to get in. In some military games, or some Hive Ganger games, that's easy. But not for, say, Valthor.

But what if Player F took over Character B? It's arguably the quickest thing to do. It's arguably the easiest, and the best for the story.

And what if we had a game where the GM presented five character sheets and asked the players to choose a character. When you make your own character, he's unique and you don't want someone playing him because they'd do it "wrong."

I mean, look at it this way - you're talking about having a second GM, which I approve of. But that's broadly similar - transferring a 'baby' to someone else so that the story can be finished. And if it works for GMs, it can work for players, especially when many of you consider yourself good, adaptable, solid writers.

Give it a thought, at least, and reply with comments.

It's worth saying, though, that it's not an issue if you guys stick with a roleplay throughout.

Well, itīs not like Iīm completely and totally against player-swapping... Iīm just wary of having my own characters corrupted by you phillistines...

Seriously, though, I guess that kind of thing could be tried, and Iīve thought about it every time someone dropped from a game (I might even have suggested it to the GM). So we could try to do something like Eddyīs FFYL or my own ATKATD (I love that acronym...), and if players drop out midway through the RPG we try and find someone open-minded enough to take their characters.

I'm all for character swapping and episodic content but I'm extremely against archetypes (even if alot of my characters tend to fit one).

Also, I'm with Seato, when you starting that RP Jen?

I seem to be an oddball here in that, while I'm attached to my characters, as long as someone can play them decently I'm fine with them taking over if I drop out.

I'm definitely game for having someone pick up the slack of an inactive character, but I don't think that's the problem. I never really want to play someone else's character. It's not that I don't like the character or anything, but being sprung into a game that may be 100 posts in doesn't appeal to me. I've only ever jumped into an (S)RP once after it had already started, and I was out of the loop. I had pages of reading to do to just get up to date with what was going on, and I didn't really enjoy myself.

Jumping into a FRP after it's started means sifting through pages of posts to get the main points of the story and the character. I'd rather just have the character killed off and another one come in. It may be hard for the GM to work in the killing of the character and the new character's entrance, but I favor this alternative to picking up someone else's character.

As for generic characters or pre-made characters - No. No. No.

This isn't the trouble, though. The timeframe is the trouble. Inevitably, someone will lag, and even if they are still in the game they may hold it up due to schoolwork, an emergency or simply forgetting. The longer people have to wait for an update, the more likely even the enthusiastic ones are to drop out. So how quickly do you decide when to cut them out? Do you, CAN you even, set a strict time-limit? Even if you do, how can you guarantee that someone will be available to immediately step into the defaulter's place?

I'm not saying that. They can be customized, but the designers MUST(a) be thick-skinned, as someone else may play or kill off their character if they can't take care of him, and ( design their character so he's not too difficult for someone else to play if necessary.

Besides, I'm not saying this style is for everyone, and I'm certainly not saying we should all switch over to it at once.

Another possibility: Live RPing. If several people can guarantee to be on MSN at a set time each week, the game can work just like it would around a table. The upside here is being certain of everyone's participation -- the downside is the inevitable comms problems. But it might even be possible to play Inquisitor or Dark Heresy this way -- both of which I'd like to try.

Why don't we just have some unwritten rule about GMs playing inactive characters? I'm never opposed to a GM putting my character on cruise control when I'm away - I think that is another option. If the GM wants to update and everyone hasn't posted, just NPC the character for the update. If the player has a problem, they can live with it or ask the GM to omit their character's actions from the update.

Have the GM take one character, and that will kill some of the thrill of the game. For example, if the GM has to take the sergeant character...


Also, yeah, Iīm totally up for MSN roleplaying. As long as SOMEONE ELSE works out the time difference.

It's always an option, certainly, but it becomes a lot more work for the GM. And, as Drakkar said, if it's the Sergeant/Commander character, the game could easily get reduced to "The Sergeant says move forward." "We move forward." "The Sergeant says kill the tank" "We kill the tank" - if you know what I mean.