What is often missed in these discussions, it seems to me, is that almost everything that happens with your character at the table is emergent - it develops through play. This includes equipment, level, hit points, and all the other mundane system-related variables, of course. But it also applies to the 'personality' of the character too, in my experience. Generally, they begin life as ciphers - not quite blank slates, as you may have some vague ideas about the type of character they are - but almost.
Personality comes with interaction with the game world, the other PCs, and with NPCs. Characters get fleshed out by their life experience, in other words. As usual, the 2nd edition DMG has it right (albeit stated in the context of giving advice on what level new PCs should be introduced to a campaign):
If at all possible, start characters at 1st level. The lowest character levels are like the early years of childhood. What happens to a character during these first adventures will do much to determine how that character will be role-played. Did Rath the Dwarf save the day by fool-hardily charging into battle when he was a mere 1st level? If he did, the odds are good the player will try it again and will begin to play Rath as a bold and reckless fellow.
On the other hand, if Rath was clobbered the first few times he rushed in, the player would begin to play Rath as a cautious, prudent fellow. Even the smallest events can have a great effect on low-level characters, so these events sharply etch the behavior of the character. Deny the player these beginning levels and you are stripping him of the opportunity to develop his character's personality.
It is through experience that PCs become fleshed out into real 'people', in other words, and starting off a new PC is like putting on a new pair of shoes. It takes a while to wear them in. This also means that players don't have full control over how their PC develops: the process is a pseudo-mystical mixture of design and the quasi-random emergent processes of interaction and events, with the primary emphasis on the emergent processes. This fact should be obvious to anybody who plays role playing games, I would suggest.
I couldn't agree more. I really don't understand why any player would *want* to attempt it another way. Emergent things are the most fun aspect of RPGs and what sets them apart from other games.
ReplyDeleteIf I may engage in a bit of cruel dead horse beating, Ron Edwards' term for this is Ouija-board role-playing. You may be amused to learn that he thinks you are the "most deluded role-player in the world" for having this opinion.
ReplyDeleteNothing that man writes makes much sense, but I find his poisoning of the well there hilarious: "There's these people, right, and they think they're enjoying themselves, but I've observed that actually they aren't. Also, they're socially maladjusted, isolated, and weird. This is probably why they don't fit in with my amazing model."
DeleteI seriously doubt Ron knows any amazing models.
DeleteIndeed, it's obvious enough that I've always wondered at those who routinely start off at levels best described as "well-established". Sure, you can run a bunch of heroes or whatever, for a 1-off, tournament-style game, or special series, but it's just not the same kind of game or interaction.
ReplyDeletePlus, the uncertainty and of-necessity teamwork that permeates the lowest levels is frankly a lot of fun.
The level of your character has little bearing on whether or not events affect your playstyle. Starting at first level when the rest of the party is several levels higher is a near-guarantee that you'll get clobbered and have to become more cautious, though (unless you want to start over again with a different first-level character). That is to say, starting a character well below the rest of the party is stacking the deck in what the 2e authors idealize as a formative experience.
ReplyDeleteIn actuality, no matter what level the character is, his first few sessions shape him as much or more than any declarations about the character made prior to the start of play. I've started games at 4th level and watched the players undergo exactly the same degree of formative experience. This is because that process isn't about your character's competence in the world - it's about your familiarity, and the party's familiarity, with that character.
I agree. I wasn't particularly commenting on the question of what level to start at. More noting that Zeb Cook or whoever it was who wrote that paragraph knew what he was talking about in the broader sense.
DeleteI actually had a bit of an epiphany along these lines recently. I'm still working on how to frame it properly.
ReplyDeleteEmergent role-play is like watching sports. The excitement is in seeing whether your team can leverage their abilities to overcome the odds. There is no coherent narrative, but that actually serves to enhance the experience. If your team pulls out an amazing play at the last moment, it is because your team is awesome, and not because dramatic timing suggested it.
Story games are like watching dramas. On the one hand, you know the good guys are going to win. That's a rule. When they win, you may feel elated, but you don't feel surprised. The excitement and enchantment comes from managing arcs and threads to create an emotionally fulfilling tale.
Personally, I prefer dramas. But, that's because I typically care much more about the "who" and the "why" than about the "what" and the "how".
Looping this in, starting a character at 4th level is like tuning into a sporting event in the 4th quarter (or appropriate time unit). Sure, you can see the score on the board, but you have no feel of the momentum and mood. Also, you know that you have missed some degree of awesome that put those points on the board. If my goal is to see if the characters can win, that is unsatisfying. If my goal is to explore clashes between the players (a la any quidditch match), then the rest of the game is irrelevant.