The only sure thing I can suggest is trying to develop a clear understanding of what other people's narratives are. Playing a spectator for a while isn't necessarily a bad idea - rather than playing with an eye towards how others might fit into your narrative, or even how you would fit into theirs. Both stances are going to resist your changing your character, even if it's the right thing to do.
More broadly, you can try the 12 steps, except replace 'alcohol' with 'melodrama' and 'God' with 'Game'. On a more humanistic level, what are your character's goals? Do they rely heavily on themes of self-immolation? On having others rescue you? Is your character building anything? Does he have any reason to help other people? What about your character tempers the personality? So that it's not driven solely towards a melodramatic end, with an aura of martyrdom. (Note, too, that you'd have to interpret that into the narrative - it's not really an oog exercise except in the abstract.)
In my own exploring of the topic, I find that martyrdom is great and can make for a great story. But little sacrifice means a little story. Big sacrifice means a big story. To achieve big sacrifice you have to seriously build towards something. You have to have accrued assets. If people only know Ross as an on-the-edge barbarian murderball, the sacrifice is little. Of *course* they throw him into the fray first. On the other hand, if Ross were somebody everyone relied on for something small but apparent, for a long time, they're going to be very reluctant to sacrifice him. People will much sooner give up sunlight or fire than they will the air they breathe or the ground they walk on. If the stories you like are sacrifice stories, focus on how to build up a really big sacrifice first.
In regards to perceptions; what you consider concrete steps are likely not. Other people are interpreting it wildly differently, regardless of who you are, the character is, or the situation. I mean that generally, not just in your case.
I say this because so far as my perspective in game is concerned, Caulder is still Ross because Caulder has been acting with shame, guilt and avoidance. These things don't allow the issues characters may have had with Ross to be addressed, their perceptions altered. If your goal was to have a now-likeable character - and I'm only assuming that - I think you made some tactical and strategic mistakes. Blood Magic is a bit icky; it does not make you instantly likeable to most. Bringing the Magistrate down on people is not a 'Hey! Lets get along!' move. Of course, most people are going to be suspicion, so that forming of trust is going to be a long road - perhaps no longer for those things.
Being an 'observer' may be a difficult one for me since I typically run headfirst into plotlines/narratives, but it may be a good idea to try. The 12 step seems like an effective strategy...
The character questions provide some food for thought... On my character goals, self-immolation and martyrdom were actually not on my list although being rescue *was* pretty spot on. Typically, I base my storyline on several core character beliefs that are likely to combust when to staff touches it. That is what maneuvered Ross into the whole debacle. Perhaps taking a step back to assess the bigger picture and the advice for a 'big sacrifice' (hopefully minus the character death) can be applied to becoming an asset as opposed to a problem for the town. I don't doubt it'll take many sessions before that kind of trust is formed though.
"Typically, I base my storyline on several core character beliefs that are likely to combust when to staff touches it."
Maybe this is part of the problem?
Where is there room for other players in that statement? Other than as the people who receive the blast-back when you do combust? Where do you see other player characters in your narrative? Do they amount to more than a set of fuses and burnable materials?
"I don't doubt it'll take many sessions before that kind of trust is formed though."
I'm going to posit that this viewpoint will swiftly become self-impeding. If it is read as a passive statement, it implies a 'please trust me again!' request. You may not mean it that way, but some percentage of the people who hear it, or a variant, will take it that way. No one wants to be made to feel bad out of game about not trusting your character. No one wants to feel like you're implying they need to help your character be trusted again.
In fact, there is a whole class of out of game statements that I think swiftly affect gameplay, typically of the form, "Well, my character did [x] because of [y]", but also including any statement about a character meant to cast them in a particular emotional light.
For instance, I had a character Alexander who killed another character in a game a long time ago. From Alexander's viewpoint it was, in essence, a mercy killing (and the other player did a really good job of transmitting the "Uh... I REALLY don't want to die" vibe). If I said, out of game, "Yeah, Alexander didn't want to do that, but she would have suffered so much more if he hadn't.", one might be inclined to think positively of Alexander.
On the other hand, there were characters in the game who had every reason to think of Alexander as a kidnapper, meddler with minds, and bloody-minded killer. For them his motives aren't half as important as the threat he posed, and the character death mentioned above is exactly the sort of proof of that. Mentioned, out of game, "Alexander stole so-and-so away from me and killed her." casts a decidedly bad light.
The point being that neither of these has much truth within the game world, and their repetition affects subsequent gameplay. When push comes to shove, the characters aren't then acting out of what they know, but stuff that has been drilled into their player's heads.
If you repeat, plaintively, over and over that Ross/Calder won't have anyone's trust for many sessions, it is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if you're actually saying that we should trust you/Calder, then any actual trust will be tainted by that. The real question should be; what actions in the game world should cause our characters to trust him? If you have to support it out of game, then it doesn't count. (1)
I do have to say, though, bravo for evenly listening to rather harsh criticisms.
(1) Another way to state this is "Show don't tell." A possible strategy is to decide on specific actions, that demonstrate the thing you want to say about the character, that you're going to take before hand, and do them, even if the circumstances aren't quite right. Avoid making the statements out of game, and let the chips fall where they may. Post-game out of game analysis will be much richer that way, at the least, and you can disengage from the meta-game of trying to shape perceptions through non-game means.
More broadly, you can try the 12 steps, except replace 'alcohol' with 'melodrama' and 'God' with 'Game'. On a more humanistic level, what are your character's goals? Do they rely heavily on themes of self-immolation? On having others rescue you? Is your character building anything? Does he have any reason to help other people? What about your character tempers the personality? So that it's not driven solely towards a melodramatic end, with an aura of martyrdom. (Note, too, that you'd have to interpret that into the narrative - it's not really an oog exercise except in the abstract.)
In my own exploring of the topic, I find that martyrdom is great and can make for a great story. But little sacrifice means a little story. Big sacrifice means a big story. To achieve big sacrifice you have to seriously build towards something. You have to have accrued assets. If people only know Ross as an on-the-edge barbarian murderball, the sacrifice is little. Of *course* they throw him into the fray first. On the other hand, if Ross were somebody everyone relied on for something small but apparent, for a long time, they're going to be very reluctant to sacrifice him. People will much sooner give up sunlight or fire than they will the air they breathe or the ground they walk on. If the stories you like are sacrifice stories, focus on how to build up a really big sacrifice first.
In regards to perceptions; what you consider concrete steps are likely not. Other people are interpreting it wildly differently, regardless of who you are, the character is, or the situation. I mean that generally, not just in your case.
I say this because so far as my perspective in game is concerned, Caulder is still Ross because Caulder has been acting with shame, guilt and avoidance. These things don't allow the issues characters may have had with Ross to be addressed, their perceptions altered. If your goal was to have a now-likeable character - and I'm only assuming that - I think you made some tactical and strategic mistakes. Blood Magic is a bit icky; it does not make you instantly likeable to most. Bringing the Magistrate down on people is not a 'Hey! Lets get along!' move. Of course, most people are going to be suspicion, so that forming of trust is going to be a long road - perhaps no longer for those things.
Reply
Being an 'observer' may be a difficult one for me since I typically run headfirst into plotlines/narratives, but it may be a good idea to try. The 12 step seems like an effective strategy...
The character questions provide some food for thought... On my character goals, self-immolation and martyrdom were actually not on my list although being rescue *was* pretty spot on. Typically, I base my storyline on several core character beliefs that are likely to combust when to staff touches it. That is what maneuvered Ross into the whole debacle. Perhaps taking a step back to assess the bigger picture and the advice for a 'big sacrifice' (hopefully minus the character death) can be applied to becoming an asset as opposed to a problem for the town. I don't doubt it'll take many sessions before that kind of trust is formed though.
Reply
Maybe this is part of the problem?
Where is there room for other players in that statement? Other than as the people who receive the blast-back when you do combust? Where do you see other player characters in your narrative? Do they amount to more than a set of fuses and burnable materials?
"I don't doubt it'll take many sessions before that kind of trust is formed though."
I'm going to posit that this viewpoint will swiftly become self-impeding. If it is read as a passive statement, it implies a 'please trust me again!' request. You may not mean it that way, but some percentage of the people who hear it, or a variant, will take it that way. No one wants to be made to feel bad out of game about not trusting your character. No one wants to feel like you're implying they need to help your character be trusted again.
In fact, there is a whole class of out of game statements that I think swiftly affect gameplay, typically of the form, "Well, my character did [x] because of [y]", but also including any statement about a character meant to cast them in a particular emotional light.
For instance, I had a character Alexander who killed another character in a game a long time ago. From Alexander's viewpoint it was, in essence, a mercy killing (and the other player did a really good job of transmitting the "Uh... I REALLY don't want to die" vibe). If I said, out of game, "Yeah, Alexander didn't want to do that, but she would have suffered so much more if he hadn't.", one might be inclined to think positively of Alexander.
On the other hand, there were characters in the game who had every reason to think of Alexander as a kidnapper, meddler with minds, and bloody-minded killer. For them his motives aren't half as important as the threat he posed, and the character death mentioned above is exactly the sort of proof of that. Mentioned, out of game, "Alexander stole so-and-so away from me and killed her." casts a decidedly bad light.
The point being that neither of these has much truth within the game world, and their repetition affects subsequent gameplay. When push comes to shove, the characters aren't then acting out of what they know, but stuff that has been drilled into their player's heads.
If you repeat, plaintively, over and over that Ross/Calder won't have anyone's trust for many sessions, it is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if you're actually saying that we should trust you/Calder, then any actual trust will be tainted by that. The real question should be; what actions in the game world should cause our characters to trust him? If you have to support it out of game, then it doesn't count. (1)
I do have to say, though, bravo for evenly listening to rather harsh criticisms.
(1) Another way to state this is "Show don't tell." A possible strategy is to decide on specific actions, that demonstrate the thing you want to say about the character, that you're going to take before hand, and do them, even if the circumstances aren't quite right. Avoid making the statements out of game, and let the chips fall where they may. Post-game out of game analysis will be much richer that way, at the least, and you can disengage from the meta-game of trying to shape perceptions through non-game means.
Reply
Leave a comment