Character VS Plot

[Closetmonster]

I believe that shoddy RPing is exactly the concern, Kes. A well done RP has room for characters to have their own personalities and not have to sacrifice themselves for the advancement of a story.

Also, I'd hope that most experienced RPers would have known the intent of the story from the first and therefore, would not create a character which would feel the need to drive their own story apart from everyone else. That is a newbie mistake in my estimation and I'm more than happy to set a monster on them to eat them.

And if my character, which I crafted to hopefully fit in with all of the others, simply did not fit, then I'm content having them eaten without much complaint from my quarter.

*cough* I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, only with different takes/sides of the coin. No one likes to be told how to play their character and no one likes to find that a story they thought they were a part of, has left the station without them because they find that everyone else has chosen to ignore the story idea given or because they have missed the original premise. An effective RP has a clear story line which makes room for everyone and at the same time, gives direction which the players FOLLOW (thank heavens) without wandering off to get eaten. If we're lucky.

[KnightShade]

Actually, I don't consider the quiet farm-idea stupid. In fact said character could start to see that they are actually also being a threat to the world, or is being crushed under the weight of responsibility, is afraid of their party members or can't handle one single more encounter with dragons. There are plenty of reasons to justify it. My point was that, while it's fine that a character may act, opposing the general direction, they have to understand that events can go on as planned. If someone says to me "Hell no we're not going through the caves of Mordia." And all the players agree. Then fine, they won't. Instead of being ambushed by orcs, an ogre and a balrog, I'll have them deal with whatever fiends and weather conditions they'll find in the mountains. If the group splits in two... Well it's gonna be harder for both parties and as the GM I'll later find ways to keep both parties relevant to the same overaching story. Or kill them.

Generally what both of you say is that railroading is bad. Which, yes, it is. Now however, look at this;

ALL characters act how they want to and none of them in anyway end up being tied to the main storyline. Making that epic quest to save the world transform into a sandbox RP where everyone plays alone. You just listed the 'plot' perspective extreme, but that right there is the 'character' perspective extreme. Technically speaking, characters can say "Fuck main storyline." all the time. However what makes an RP is not having a bunch of different perspectives, it is the interaction between players. Lacking that, because of "Never compromise character, not even in the face of RP death" kills the game for everyone. If it even was an RP to begin with.

Ah, I get the fist point now. As for the second I'm not suggesting turning to one extreme from where the RP starts though I think the extreme you suggest is a little biased as character interaction is based upon the characters personalities so only if everyone is completly asocial would it eliminate interaction. I guess are examples so far may have been a bit extreme but mostly because I've not thought of a neutral example that properly demonstrates the dichotomy of which comes first. Of course the never compromise character approach kills the RP, it's deliberately chosen to be ridiculously extreme lol. Anyway coming back to what you said about perspectives versus interaction my argument there would be that without perspectives there couldn't be any meaningful interaction. Maybe they'd work together or maybe in a one x one they'd get together but it wouldn't hve substance behind it and you wouldn't get the other possibilities that come with having characters with beliefs and passions and prejudices.

[Kestrel]

I believe that shoddy RPing is exactly the concern, Kes. A well done RP has room for characters to have their own personalities and not have to sacrifice themselves for the advancement of a story.

Also, I'd hope that most experienced RPers would have known the intent of the story from the first and therefore, would not create a character which would feel the need to drive their own story apart from everyone else. That is a newbie mistake in my estimation and I'm more than happy to set a monster on them to eat them.

And if my character, which I crafted to hopefully fit in with all of the others, simply did not fit, then I'm content having them eaten without much complaint from my quarter.

*cough* I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, only with different takes/sides of the coin. No one likes to be told how to play their character and no one likes to find that a story they thought they were a part of, has left the station without them because they find that everyone else has chosen to ignore the story idea given or because they have missed the original premise. An effective RP has a clear story line which makes room for everyone and at the same time, gives direction which the players FOLLOW (thank heavens) without wandering off to get eaten. If we're lucky.

To be honest, in my last story-heavy RP, I had a player kill off the main villain before I even had a chance to reveal him as such. That was my fault entirely because I let everyone control NPC's as they pleased, with the exception of those I announced they couldn't (none, at the time.) So I dug my own grave there. This made me have to rethink the entire potential plot and end up having a very different RP, where it became a mix of characters trying to figure out what the fuck had happened and deal with the hell everyone spread in the process (although admittedly this was more about character actions influencing each other's stories than having a classic everyone-in-the-same-space RP.) It got pretty damn sweet. I had to improvise the fuck out of every single post, because more than occasionally players would mess my plans up (which was awesome,) it did end up a pretty coherent story.

What this taught me is that with different inputs, rather than just my own, a story can regardless become awesome even though having less power over it as the GM. Granted we can all tie it together. It ain't easy, though.

Other than that... Well, yeah, we're more or less selling the same idea. Except I call it neutral and you call it character :P

Ah, I get the fist point now. As for the second I'm not suggesting turning to one extreme from where the RP starts though I think the extreme you suggest is a little biased as character interaction is based upon the characters personalities so only if everyone is completly asocial would it eliminate interaction. I guess are examples so far may have been a bit extreme but mostly because I've not thought of a neutral example that properly demonstrates the dichotomy of which comes first. Of course the never compromise character approach kills the RP, it's deliberately chosen to be ridiculously extreme lol. Anyway coming back to what you said about perspectives versus interaction my argument there would be that without perspectives there couldn't be any meaningful interaction. Maybe they'd work together or maybe in a one x one they'd get together but it wouldn't hve substance behind it and you wouldn't get the other possibilities that come with having characters with beliefs and passions and prejudices.

I'm basically advocating that without an action-reaction pattern between players, there is no roleplay. Not saying that different perspectives cannot play a role :P

[Closetmonster]

What this taught me is that with different inputs, rather than just my own, a story can regardless become awesome even though having less power over it as the GM. Granted we can all tie it together. It ain't easy, though.

Exactly!!! And that is where the magic happens. Which is why I like folks dropping earl grey on mouse heads.

As for our different words, that's just the way the damn language works. Words just have a habit of meaning multiple things when complicated by human interpretation. I really think they'd be better off if we left well enough alone and communicated instead by hitting one another on the heads with rocks. It's really not their (the words') fault.

[KnightShade]

I'm basically advocating that without an action-reaction pattern between players, there is no roleplay. Not saying that different perspectives cannot play a role :P

Ah, that's alright then. I think that's back to the point about the English language earlier lol. Off to the shops now anyways.

[Closetmonster]

(additionally: edit)

~grabs Kes' tongue and runs off with it, considering it can't stay in that mouth~

- - - Updated - - -

Have a good day, KS.

[Kestrel]

I really think they'd be better off if we left well enough alone and communicated instead by hitting one another on the heads with rocks.

At the very least, that would make arguments a lot shorter :P Yeah that's right, still got it, bitch :P

Ah, that's alright then. I think that's back to the point about the English language earlier lol. Off to the shops now anyways.

Eh, don't worry. Most of my posts in this thread are coming off as vague to me as well.

[Closetmonster]

Heh - I think you must be keeping surplus tongues in your pocket. Ah well.

It would! But where's the fun in that? Without conflict, we haven't a reason to connect. Which then, is why we find conflict (within reason) in our RP's makes things that much more awesome.

Thank you for the very invigorating discussion. It's always a lot of fun to try and figure out where we intersect and where we see in different directions.

[Nemaisare]

After reading through all that blather, and I do mean that in the kindest way possible (it was good, useful debate blather), I have decided to say that keeping to character is far more important than keeping to plot. In context of the argument floating around in my head, this is because I ought to have created the character to fit the plot, or the plot to fit the character since I would otherwise be going nowhere.

[Brovo]

Ooh, great question.

I tend to stick it to the plot and keep my characters consistent. Simply: Plot can, and should, change. Characters changing for no reason will break the plot.

In role playing: Characters interacting create the plot--In the sense of a history of actions one can trace up to where they are now, and in a goal that typically unites the group. That's all. Therefore, if characters break themselves to service the plot they've created, then they're doing a disservice to the plot because the plot will begin to destabilize from inconsistency in the characters that are creating it.

Tada!

Good characters being consistent > Plot. Any day.

As for poor characters that don't interact with the group, that work against the group, etc, well... Yeah. They're doomed to failure from the start, regardless of the plot you have in mind or how much you railroad the players into doing your bidding because they won't advance a plot, they'll advance themselves independent of one another and create divergent interests that will eventually tear into one another. Ergo, "poor characters dooming the plot" just illuminate the point that characters > plot. Every time, all the time, forever and ever.

Now this isn't to say that you can't have antagonistic characters in the party, or that you can't have rivalries. Damn I love rivalries between two best friends, or two people fighting over the same love interest. It's old as hell, but still awesome. Just so long as interaction element takes priority over "pity me", "woe is me", and brooding in general.

tl;dr: In a role play, characters create the plot through their interactions with one another. Therefore to sacrifice character consistency for the plot is shooting the plot in the foot later on in the story when that inconsistency begins to show. Therefore... Characters > Plot. At least 95% of the time.