Personally I do not necessarily like joining a RP in which I am expected to take control of a character that has already been created (even if I am given limited liberties in changing that character to better suit my style) unless I take a particular interest in the characters and story presented. Even then it is unlikely as I always feel like a stranger in someone else's shoes when playing a character I did not create.

Now, I am not just looking for other peoples' opinions but am also posing another question. While you may (or may not) have a problem with playing a character created by the GM; how do you feel about fulfilling a specific character role?

Let me elaborate. Let's say that a GM has a very specific story in mind and while the characters are flexible, he/she needs specific character roles to be filled. This could mean that the GM needs someone to play a corrupt politician but everything else is up to the player. Or perhaps the GM needs someone to play an alcoholic swordsman who lost his right arm in a war. The one-armed, alcoholic swordsman is a better example than the corrupt politician as the swordsman character actually offers less freedom than the former. A player who must base his character around the swordsman concept must make sure they properly understand the mind-set of an alcoholic AND a cripple (thus limiting just how much the player can do with that character).

Personally I feel that not enough GMs use this method but maybe it is because it is not popular as I know how much some people love making their own character. I have just never understood why people insist on creating their own characters down to the very core detail when they are going to be playing someone else's world. I mean, I can understand it to a point but in the end I have always felt like a RP is more than the world it takes place in or the characters that participate. I always thought it was more about the story that was being created by the GM and all the players.

Sometimes, just sometimes I think it is the very freedom of a RP that so many GMs strive to give to their players that is the cause for the RP's downfall. I don't think I would have a problem fulfilling a certain character role (rather than a whole character). In fact, I think I just might prefer it.

-RogueMinstrel

Hey, I'm all for it. You know what it's kinda like? It's like being an actor, and then auditioning or filling a role for a major movie production.

I'm a film student, so my metaphors are almost always going to be related to the industry. Hell, I still think that pulling together a roleplay is in many ways akin to putting a short film or feature film together. If I can see, clearly, the vision that the GM has in mind for the story he or she wants to tell .. and I get a real sense of the direction that this specific character needs to be played in, then yes. I can get excited for playing something that's already set out for me.

However, if a roleplay has just, "need four vampires and four werewolves" then yes, that's where I'll have a problem.The way that the "casting call" of sorts goes out can be dependent on if this method works or not. That's why it is so critical for GMs to be able to convey their vision, the feel and atmosphere and direction of the story that they want to tell. They must become both Producers, and Directors of the entire shebang. :P

There is, I think, a tangible difference in environment in roleplays where the GM is confident, knows the story world, and can answer questions related to that - and when a GM is just giving an open free-form sandbox and has no idea where things are going, itself. That's where you'll find when the characters really pop, or when they just blend in with the dust.

-VV

Hmmmm... I think I stand on the other side of the fence.

The examples you gave, I might not have a problem with.

Corrupt politician: This is a common request. "Good guys" and "Bad guys" are often called for in rp casting. I can still decide *why* and *how* I am corrupt, my own history, my personality, what I think of other characters, basically how I function in the setting laid out for me.

The one-arm'd alcoholic warrior is a bit more of a limitation. However it is only two physical limitations that are not uncommon either. I see rp's were everyone is a Vampire (phsyical sun-weakness). RP's often give you a specific occupational option ('we are an adventuring group fighting evil-dead-thinggies...). Alcoholism could be akin to a social weakness, which I have also seen ('pc's are a group of outcasts...). I could feasibly play with that idea as well.

I hit the 'back' button when I see an rpg where the characters personality is already set up for me. I *have* seen gm's posting characters that pretty much have an entire personality, backstory, and relationships with the other characters are pre-determined.

My perspective on writing-based rpg's is that the dm and players are writing the story together. What I am discussing does not mean that pc's should be able to make characters that do not make sense or fit into the story or world that the DM has created. The DM's job is to write the setting and story, the players job is to write the characters.

I consider it a 'writing game'. Part of the craft of writing is character creation and development. Part of writing a story is character creation and development. I rp because I enjoy the art and craft of writing. I rp because I enjoy these arts in collaboration, the other characters and players ad an element of surprise and creativity that make the game fun.

When I see an rp where all the characters are pre-made (and I feel like I already know the ending), I wonder: if you have the story and characters already thought out why not just write it by yourself?

I would not wan to join an rp where the character 'work' is done for me, that's part of the fun. I want to play a whole character.

I understand the appeal of other styles or options being discussed (as I said earlier, the conditions given in your example are waaay less inhibiting than those that I have seen before) this is my preference, and one of the big reasons I play in the the first place.

Abandoned/Adopted characters are a little bit of a different issue. In a game it sucks when a player suddenly becomes absent. In most cases I would recommend writing the character out of the story, though sometimes I can see how that might not work (I'm in an rp now where that was the case, so I took over the character.) I think if there is a new player for an existing character, the new player should be given the courtesy to 'tweak' the guy a bit and make it their own (I think it is kinda unavoidable anyway). If they like the skeleton or the concept of the character, and think they can do great things with it, great! There is also a great number of ways to explain a change of personality in a character such as a head trauma or crazy experience.

This is actually the first time I have ever 'adopted' a character, the RP just started, so IG he hasn't really done anything yet, makes it easy for me. :P I'll let you know how it goes.

I don't mind descriptions like corrupt politician or even one-armed, alcoholic swordsman. Sure they're roles but I can still do with them pretty much everything I want to with them. Maybe he's a jolly drunk, maybe he's an angry drunk. Fuck he could be an emo drunk or a combination on any of the three. I could make him a tragic figure, I could make him a confused, angry figure, or someone who has had the guts and ingenious to learn deal with his handicap... Well for only so much due to the alcoholism, but still! Maybe he has a kid, maybe he still in a way is a kid due to being recruited so early. I can come up with twenty different characters if the only strings you give me are alcoholic swordsman who lost his arm in a war.

However, if you give me a prewritten personality/historyI (or predetermined love interest for that matter) will tap backspace right away. As a roleplayer, I'm not there to write a GM's story for them; I'm there to have fun playing my character. The overarching story is an excuse for me to write that character. If the story is actually good (something you really won't know till it gets started) it'll be an extra. If I wanted to read a story, I'd buy a book or rent a movie. GM's need to understand that PbP is not Dungeons and Dragons and doesn't necessarily attract the same people as D&D.

To be honest, one of the first things I learned when GM'ing is that no matter how carefully you set up your plots and traps people players will always, for the better or worse, find holes in them and fuck up your carefully planned story. Always! The thing is; that's good. I'm of opinion we should embrace this. Pre-determined characters are a way to shoehorn a story and that's something I personally consider plain bad GM'ing. If a player finds a legitimate hole in your plot, deal with it; let them play it out. Improvise! Same way if a player adds a character into the mix you hadn't expected, find a role for them! Roleplayers are improvisational actors and the same way I expect the GM to be an improvisational director. Roleplayers are excited about their decisions. Let them be excited. Find a way to get excited about them yourself. Everyone will have fun and... That's what a roleplay is about.

RogueMinstrel wrote: I have just never understood why people insist on creating their own characters down to the very core detail when they are going to be playing someone else's world. I mean, I can understand it to a point but in the end I have always felt like a RP is more than the world it takes place in or the characters that participate. I always thought it was more about the story that was being created by the GM and all the players.

I think this itself is the answer.
In terms of a mechanically based RPG like D&D, the "golden box around the character sheet" is especially important since in that kind of game, the GM controls everything and literally all the players have is that character (usually).
Even though it's a bit more open in freeform writing roleplay, a lot of people want that ability to completely create their character for this world.
Some people don't have that much interest in being "actors" taking on a role. There's nothing wrong with this. The key is to make sure each side understands the reasons why.

Sometimes, just sometimes I think it is the very freedom of a RP that so many GMs strive to give to their players that is the cause for the RP's downfall. I don't think I would have a problem fulfilling a certain character role (rather than a whole character). In fact, I think I just might prefer it.

Rather than say "freedom", I'd say they downfall is caused by too much of a sandbox in which the players don't really know what to do.

Eyeris wrote:Hmmmm... I think I stand on the other side of the fence.

The examples you gave, I might not have a problem with.

Corrupt politician: This is a common request. "Good guys" and "Bad guys" are often called for in rp casting. I can still decide *why* and *how* I am corrupt, my own history, my personality, what I think of other characters, basically how I function in the setting laid out for me.

The one-arm'd alcoholic warrior is a bit more of a limitation. However it is only two physical limitations that are not uncommon either. I see rp's were everyone is a Vampire (phsyical sun-weakness). RP's often give you a specific occupational option ('we are an adventuring group fighting evil-dead-thinggies...). Alcoholism could be akin to a social weakness, which I have also seen ('pc's are a group of outcasts...). I could feasibly play with that idea as well.

I hit the 'back' button when I see an rpg where the characters personality is already set up for me. I *have* seen gm's posting characters that pretty much have an entire personality, backstory, and relationships with the other characters are pre-determined.

My perspective on writing-based rpg's is that the dm and players are writing the story together. What I am discussing does not mean that pc's should be able to make characters that do not make sense or fit into the story or world that the DM has created. The DM's job is to write the setting and story, the players job is to write the characters.

I consider it a 'writing game'. Part of the craft of writing is character creation and development. Part of writing a story is character creation and development. I rp because I enjoy the art and craft of writing. I rp because I enjoy these arts in collaboration, the other characters and players ad an element of surprise and creativity that make the game fun.

When I see an rp where all the characters are pre-made (and I feel like I already know the ending), I wonder: if you have the story and characters already thought out why not just write it by yourself?

I would not wan to join an rp where the character 'work' is done for me, that's part of the fun. I want to play a whole character.

I understand the appeal of other styles or options being discussed (as I said earlier, the conditions given in your example are waaay less inhibiting than those that I have seen before) this is my preference, and one of the big reasons I play in the the first place.

Abandoned/Adopted characters are a little bit of a different issue. In a game it sucks when a player suddenly becomes absent. In most cases I would recommend writing the character out of the story, though sometimes I can see how that might not work (I'm in an rp now where that was the case, so I took over the character.) I think if there is a new player for an existing character, the new player should be given the courtesy to 'tweak' the guy a bit and make it their own (I think it is kinda unavoidable anyway). If they like the skeleton or the concept of the character, and think they can do great things with it, great! There is also a great number of ways to explain a change of personality in a character such as a head trauma or crazy experience.

This is actually the first time I have ever 'adopted' a character, the RP just started, so IG he hasn't really done anything yet, makes it easy for me. :P I'll let you know how it goes.

To carry the example of pre-made characters into another medium, let's have a look at adventure "modules" made for tabletop systems. They have pre-built characters with a power level appropriate for the setting and the encounters, and yet they sell fairly well. (True story: The adventure module that was at the center of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising does actually exist. The ludicrous gear used...well, that's up to your gaming group.) I think the problem most people will have with the comparison is when this is carried over to the example you mentioned: History, personality, everything. At least with tabletop games, you bring a personality to the statistics. When you're auditioning for a role in a story that's basically already written by the GM, it's kind of against the idea of collaborating on the story. At best, you add your own little side-quest to the "epic plot" the GM has written, which may or may not have to do with boinking your fellow castaways in pre-set relationships.

I have given an RP like this a chance, but wrestling with the GM's eccentricities just isn't worth it. Also, there's always "we need these guy roles filled!" At least I can say I gave it a shot, though.

its good. but i dont like it. maybe not yet. im still feeling like playing my own created character