The "Learning Your Character" Wall

#1

I have no evidence for this beyond the anecdotal, but:

Something I’ve noticed is that, in games where you make your characters in some detail before you start playing them—games like D&D, among lots of others—there’s a real disconnect between the conceptual, on-paper you have beforehand, and the way that character actually plays at the table, in-game. Once you’ve got that character at the table and have realized that the image you had in your head isn’t going to work out, there’s an adjustment period.

This adjustment varies, but it’s usually about five sessions. For an RPG that you’re new to, this is also time to learn the ropes of the game; it’s when you learn a new setting or lore; it’s when you really start to get to know each other at the table.

None of this is really that surprising.

What is surprising, at least to me, is that this adjustment keeps occurring, even with veteran players. The transition period from “this character that exists in my head” to “this is how my character plays at the table” happens with almost every character I play and with every player & character I run for. The first sessions or two are the wake-up call, then the next two or three is sorting out the pertinent details of how things are actually going to be.

Why does this happen? Or, I mean, I understand why it happens in the beginning, but why does this wall exist, even for veteran players?

Furthermore, is there a way to help cut that time down? To reduce the friction of introducing a character from concept in your head to the table itself?

4 Likes
#2

I think different games have different concept > actuality load times.

two things affect this.
1-variety of situations in the game, if you just do combat it takes longer to envision your character than if you do social, exploration and combat in the first session.
2-history questions/bonds/debts, where you discuss how you know the other characters, this lets you get a feel for the sort of person they are, not just what they can do.

5 Likes
#3

I see a couple of ways to handle this:

  • Play games that do much of the character generation stuff “for you” and just give you a few things to tweak: e.g. games with “playbooks” (so Apocalypse World, and it’s offshoots). And if you want to trim time even more, just choose things as you want/need them. These days I generally tell people to pick playbook moves when they want to use them: nobody likes it when they pick a move and never get to use it.
  • Do character creation at the table as a group and do so in the most minimal way necessary to actually get moving. Luka Rejec wrote a really great piece about this recently: Quantum Characters and the Tabletop Role-playing Game. In the piece he argues for having the barest sketch of the character (not even any stats) and generating stats/skills/etc. as they are needed.

Something cool this can lead to I think is you can end up with the characters you need for the story you all want to tell. It doesn’t turn out that someone made a character that really doesn’t fit in the set up. It also means that the character can grow and become themselves as play proceeds. The player can find the character through play, not from a preconceived notion.

All that being said I also think there is a question that needs to be asked: how do the players end up getting to the table having made characters that just aren’t going to fit in the situation? Is there a deficit of communication such that the GM and all the players don’t know what everyone is doing or planning such that they are working in an information-poor environment? Is information being intentionally kept from players of GMs? The game, in the end, is a conversation. The more information everyone has the better. Ideally, they all have that information at the same time as well.

6 Likes
#4

I think this sense of disconnect between character vision and character as played is likely the result of too much character vision.

Play requires the player’s concept of thier character to interact with various other concepts outside the player’s control - the setting and the ruleset, but also other characters. It’s often hard to remain true to a fictional mindset when suddenly the type of situations and decisions one is faced with are novel or different. It’s harder the more character background there is.

My solution has been to play minimal backgrounds - a sentence or less. This allows for maximum evolution and adaption to the setting, game and party as the game evolves.

5 Likes
#5

I wonder about this, too. How much of this is “the character doesn’t match the idea I had in my head”, and how much of it is, “my character idea will always end up changing in response to the other players, the setting, and how we play”?

After all, how the others respond to your character has a lot to do with how the characters “appears to be”. For instance, if I see my character as quiet and unassuming, but the moment he walks into a scene several people cower in fear… that’s going to change how the character is being imagined by everyone from here on out.

It’s not all on you, in other words.

That said:

Actors and authors say that characters will “change” or transform, evolve, twist and grow unexpectedly, too.

9 Likes
#6

I think it’s because a lot of people don’t know how to develop characters because, for the most part, they either do it only at the table or they may dabble in a bit of writing. One of the things that makes it more difficult is that they do a LOT more work than they need to do.

This is actually where I think RPGs can benefit the most from improvisational techniques. Creating a quick mental sketch of a character helps you develop it more than a defined on paper character who hasn’t been played yet.

5 Likes
#7

One of the things I like about Fate is that you can leave some aspect slots, skill slots, and stunt slots blank at character creation and fill them in during actual play when you know more about the setting, other characters, and who your character is and how s/he fits into the game world. And with the GM’s permission, you can replace or tweak aspects, stunts, and skills/approaches in the first session too to better match your character concept and their role in the setting.

5 Likes
#8

I agree with both those factors but think that are many more:

  1. Skill specificity - In a game with very broad skills, your character might be effective at things you don’t expect them to. If you made a character with a high Strength because they are a laborer, are they also good at jousting? Better than a character with lower Strength whose concept is that they are an excellent Knight? This might mean that concept -> actuality is never met.

  2. Skill clarity - In a game with lots of specific skills, your character might miss a skill during character creation that you really want them to have.

  3. Expectations clash with character creation rules - A new player wants to create a character who is a master wizard who runs a potion shop, but has a fierce rivalry with a competitor. If the game is not about these things, their concept might never fit. (This is why the pitch for Goblinville notes that it’s a game about broke goblins, so when you start off scrappy and penniless, it’s not a surprise.)

  4. Expectations clash with the focus of the session of play - If you follow the character creation rules and talk through character creation at the table, you can still end up with a character concepts that clashes with the events of the game. This is most likely in a game where the GM has a prepped situation (as opposed to a sandbox). It could be that you made a Scum and Villainy character that is all about brutal effectiveness in combat, but your first session hard-frames you into a subtle intrigue. This could still be fun (fish-out-of-water being a compelling narrative entry point) or you could feel that you built your character for a situation you’re unlikely to face (especially if it’s a one-shot). This is the one most connected to @shane’s point above.

  1. In-game events change your character substantially in a short amount of time. I think this is a mostly positive example of learning your character. I once made a plucky Torchbearer halfling, and then watched him repeatedly face starvation, exhaustion, and illness in the dark bowels of the earth. Within a few sessions, he was not the character I had expected to play, but I liked him a whole lot more.
6 Likes