Hero Protagonist
Interesting comment from W last night. I'd read a particular book (Mercedes Lackey, _Fortune's Fool_) and suggested he might like to read it before taking it back to the library. I didn't really have a concrete reason, just that I'd enjoyed it and it had a fairly solid and fun male lead as well as a solid and fun female lead. He finished it, and I asked him what he thought, and he said he liked it, but it was different. In his words: "The two central characters were both smart and competent, and didn't do anything stupid, so there wasn't any tension".
I hadn't thought of this, but he's right. I hadn't noticed because I like stories like this. Take one to three people who are good at what they do, give them a difficult situation, see what they make of it. You know that they'll probably make it through OK, and if they don't it's literally a tragedy - their own nature will be what causes everything to go wrong in the given situation. But in the meantime whether it works out or not - the journey is curious, they may find out interesting things or challenge cool ideas, have to change to resolve something, they encounter or create things I might not have imagined. The tension comes from wondering what the mystery of the situation is and how it could be resolved given the pieces. The other Five Hundred Kingdoms novel I read of hers (Snow Queen) is the same in that all the characters are perceptive if not smart, competent and good at what they do if sometimes flawed in certain ways, and it's those small flaws that give twists to what's already a fascinatingly constructed journey to solve the mysteries. I think I tend to prefer roleplaying like this too - stuff that's about a journey and a mystery and problems to be solved, rather than just a bashfest. At heart I believe most people are able to be quite competent, and I like seeing them do well. I believe the same about myself except in my worst moments. I suspect W is still getting used to this kind of worldview, and applying it to himself is a new experience.
I hadn't thought of this, but he's right. I hadn't noticed because I like stories like this. Take one to three people who are good at what they do, give them a difficult situation, see what they make of it. You know that they'll probably make it through OK, and if they don't it's literally a tragedy - their own nature will be what causes everything to go wrong in the given situation. But in the meantime whether it works out or not - the journey is curious, they may find out interesting things or challenge cool ideas, have to change to resolve something, they encounter or create things I might not have imagined. The tension comes from wondering what the mystery of the situation is and how it could be resolved given the pieces. The other Five Hundred Kingdoms novel I read of hers (Snow Queen) is the same in that all the characters are perceptive if not smart, competent and good at what they do if sometimes flawed in certain ways, and it's those small flaws that give twists to what's already a fascinatingly constructed journey to solve the mysteries. I think I tend to prefer roleplaying like this too - stuff that's about a journey and a mystery and problems to be solved, rather than just a bashfest. At heart I believe most people are able to be quite competent, and I like seeing them do well. I believe the same about myself except in my worst moments. I suspect W is still getting used to this kind of worldview, and applying it to himself is a new experience.