I spent a longer time than I should trying to "deduce" a formula for how to make a character appealing (at least to me) from first principles.  All of the things I thought should make a character appealing either had huge loop-holes where they clearly didn't work ... or just flat out didn't work, ever.

So instead I did the scientist thing, and just sat down with piles of fiction and started observing.  I realized that the moments when characters start to appeal to me are all moments when they are talking or thinking about (and occasionally acting with clear reference to opinions about) other characters in the fiction.  I talked about it a bit.

In any event, having formed an idea that this Thing worked, I decided to put it into practice.  The most recent playtest of Misery Bubblegum (last night) made "Talking/thinking about other characters" a critical step in the dice economy.  Dice of your color start in your pool, then go to a "dead" pool when you roll them, from there you can give them to someone else for their pool when you talk about that person's character, then when that person does something in reference to that opinion they roll the dice and those dice come back to you.  It's a "circle of life" thing.  It was obvious enough that players were looking for opportunities to express opinions.

I've got four vignettes:  This is in context of the "Cross-time High School" with students Gilgamesh (yeah, that one) and Cassandra (not that one ... a cyber-chair bound girl from a distant future) as player characters, and me filling in the NPC cast.

QuoteVignette One:  Sydney was playing Cassandra in a scene where he'd described no other characters present (she was making killer robots to try to get Gil's attention, and gloating maniacally).  I wanted to move some dice along, so I introduced Jessica, a sweet little uniformed freshman with a bright pink purse and a winning smile.  "You're so good with tools!  Wouldn't you rather be doing something more ... uh ... constructive?"

Cassandra treated Jessica as a disposable minion (C: "Here, hold down this robot while I make the adjustments ... it's sharp," J: "Ow!  It hurts!  It hurts so much!") and generally abused her.  But all players (myself included) agreed that we liked Jessica.  She'd had two lines, and we already liked her, a lot.  Dunno why.

QuoteVignette Two:  After Cassandra makes several attacks on the school, and captures Gil's friend Enkidu, Jessica comes to Gil and shyly strikes up a conversation.  I was just handing out dice like candy during this one ... like, four dice in four sentences.  Lemme see if I can remember enough to paraphrase.  "Uh ... you know Cassandra?  Red hair, sorta cut here, off the neck" (Sydney pointed out that Jessica was the only person whose first impression of Cassandra did not involve the wheelchair) then all in one long, desperate breath I said "Well ... I mean ... yeah, she's a little crazy in the head but she's also really nice deep down, and you seem like you're nice too, even if you are really big and scary, and ..."

At this point I took a deep breath, and Eric and Sydney said "Awwwwww..." in that tone you get when something is immeasurably cute.  And I took another breath, because I realized "I have no idea why she's saying this.  I did it for the dice, but now I want to justify it as more than her being a chatter-box."

And then I said "... so I just thought ... well ... she's the one who has your friend, but she's not really bad, and I don't want you to hurt her, so if I lead you to her will you promise to be nice to her?"

Eric looked pole-axed, and in a fit of inspiration I held up my hand, pinky crooked strangely.  "Pinky-swear?" Jessica asked desperately.  Eric had Gil pinky-swear to be nice to Cassandra (us describing how his pinky is the size of Jessica's whole wrist) and they went and did the rescue, and Cassandra yelled at Jessica for betraying her, and Jessica delivered some more opinion ("You're AWFUL!") and ran off in tears.  I think everybody really, really loved Jessica at this point.  She's just so ... uh ... I don't know what she is, but I know that it appeals.

QuoteVignette Three:  I figured I should branch out in my opinion offering.  After all, I'm the GM, I've got all the NPCs I want.  So I had a scene which was just Enkidu coming up and expressing concern about this whole "high school" thing.  "It's not like it was, before.  Man, Gil, you totally kicked ass back in Sumer.  It was poetry in motion," dice sliding across the table, "But now you're all ... worried and stuff.  You're thinking.  Is that what you want?  Or is this high school thing just a trap?  Maybe we should go back."

What sticks with me about this one is that I'm pretty sure I never described any facts about Enkidu.  Don't know what he likes, or what he looks like, or who he hates.  But I know that he worries about Gilgamesh, and I know specifically what type of worries he has, and that actually tells me enough that I know he's a stand-up guy and I like him.  All that took maybe twenty seconds.  I looked at Eric and said "I think that's the scene, right?" and he nodded and we moved on.

QuoteVignette Four:  And here's what we moved on to.  Cassandra had been working to reform for the second half-hour of the session, acting all nice ... and I wanted to throw a wrench in those works.  So I said "Bathroom scene.  She's in the stall, three girls walk in talking ... about her."  And then (again in about twenty seconds total) I just slammed Cassandra with a pile of dice attached to putrid opinions.  They said she was uppity, they said she didn't deserve Gilgamesh's attention (at which Sydney was whispering sadly, in Cassie's voice, "It's true") and then one of the girls said that she'd heard that in the 47th century where Cassandra came from, they were actually totally capable of curing her legs, but everyone in her life lied to her and told her that the procedures wouldn't work on her, because they wanted an excuse to dump her in the past.  "God, I hate even thinking about her," the third girl said, closing in for the kill, "All that metal and stuff ... she's not even human.  She's a monster."  And, of course, I handed over another die to punctuate the word "monster."

Good, good stuff.  Cassie flipped out (gotta use those dice I gave!) and attacked them, and Gilgamesh showed up to fight the monster ... and just as he's about to leap into battle I say "There's a little tugging on your sleeve.  It's Jessica," and I give him the big puppy-dog eyes and crook my pinky just so and mouth the words "Pinky swear."  We all took a moment out of game then to voice our shared opinion that Jessica was the best person imaginable, and was the conscience of the whole school.  Then, back to the action.

Do you have the feeling that you like these characters from what you've heard, that you have some sense of the power of the technique?  Even if you think you do, you're probably not imagining the full extent of what it did, and how quickly and easily.  I doubt very much that I've gotten it across.  The sense of love for the characters was so strong ... I'd hoped and hoped that the technique would have great effects, but it was way, way, way beyond anything I expected.  I was genuinely and constantly surprised.

And I do not know why it works.  I have no freakin' clue.  It doesn't make any sense.  No sense.  Liking a character should have to do with a whole multifaceted balance of factors, but most importantly it should have to do with the character.  How is it that directing the vast majority of my energy in playing Jessica toward thinking about Gil and Cassandra ended up with such a vividly striking portrayal of Jessica?  Why is that?

I'm seriously perplexed.  If anyone has ideas on what the hell was happening here, I'm all ears.

Quote from: TonyLBDo you have the feeling that you like these characters from what you've heard, that you have some sense of the power of the technique?

I'm not sure the media here is working that well for you: I got a sense that some of the characters had likable traits (Jessica, being innocent, having goodwill, being, naieve, maybe) -- but I'm not sure what technique you're thinking of, or exactly what you're asking (I'm not sure what the play examples were supposed to illustrate)

I think the key to drawing characters is to

1. Make them interesting in the context of the game
2. Draw them effectively

Beyond that, there's no real formula -- arrogant blowhards can be great characters if they're *interesting*.

Drawing the character is certainly a place where technique matters -- doing accents, for example, or using perfect diction can really bring a character to life.

Cheers,
-E.

I'm not quite sure what you are driving at.  Reading your examples,
Jessica seems sickeningly sweet, and has zero personality,
someone I can't stand.  Cassandra
seems like an interesting character.  The monolog between Enkidu and
Gilgamesh does nothing for me either way -- it seems cliched, and something
the mythological duo would never say in a million years.  

Just my first impression, which is what I think you asked for.

Russell

So we've got two votes (here) of people who get no sense of enjoyable characters from these excerpts.  And several votes (elsewhere) of people who immediately cotton to the characters on the basis of the vignettes.

Innnnnteresting.

Quote from: TonyLBSo we've got two votes (here) of people who get no sense of enjoyable characters from these excerpts.  And several votes (elsewhere) of people who immediately cotton to the characters on the basis of the vignettes.

Innnnnteresting.

Hmmm... interesting that you read it that way...

Very interesting -- one of those responses (mine) asked for clarification about what technique you were talking about and what your question was, along with providing some information about where I stand on the issue.

Now... why would you read that as saying I have no sense of enjoyable characters (when I listed enjoyable traits) -- I wonder if your understanding of the responses you're getting has something to do with your expectations?

I'm still interested to know what technique you were using -- what, exactly, you're asking about.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm still interested to know what technique you were using -- what, exactly, you're asking about.

-E.:  The technique I'm using is simply this:  In order to move your dice from a pool where nobody can use them back into the economy (so they'll eventually get to you) you must narrate your character talking or thinking about another character.

That's all.  It's not complicated.  Right there at the top of my post, isn't it?

Quote from: TonyLB-E.:  The technique I'm using is simply this:  In order to move your dice from a pool where nobody can use them back into the economy (so they'll eventually get to you) you must narrate your character talking or thinking about another character.

That's all.  It's not complicated.  Right there at the top of my post, isn't it?

Okay... I'm still a bit confused --you've talked quite a bit in your post about character-likability... the mechanic you've described doesn't seem to be related to likability (is it? Could I trigger dice movements by opining about a character I don't like? From your description, it reads that way).

You mention that the technique had powerful effects -- I'm not exactly seeing them -- were the effects in getting people to use the mechanic (so opinions were flying fast and furious) or were they in the nature of the player's relationship to the characters (i.e. do you think the mechanic helped make a certain character more likable / interesting)?

BTW: When you get 2 responses both indicating lack of clarity, it's a good indication you haven't been as clear as you might imagine. Further -- in this exercise (both on-line and in the playtest of your game), you're conducting experiments (playtests) to see if your mechanical ideas work.

I'd advise you to beware of observer bias. Clearly you're getting more positive feedback elsewhere. That's great -- but remember that bias can work both ways. If you're inclined to read responses here as negative (which it looks like) or to expect negative responses here, you may be doing the same thing in reverse elsewhere...

Either way, at this stage, I'd treat negative and neutral feedback as generally more-valuable than positive feedback. Your subsequent posts read as defenseive and that won't help you.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Okay... I'm still a bit confused --you've talked quite a bit in your post about character-likability... the mechanic you've described doesn't seem to be related to likability

You'd think, wouldn't you?  That's my point.  I have no sensible explanation for why a character becomes more appealing (at least to me) the moment they give an opinion on another character.  But they do.  Isn't that strange and cool?

Quote from: -E.Could I trigger dice movements by opining about a character I don't like? From your description, it reads that way.

You can say anything, positive or negative, so long as it's an opinion.  Like, at the end of Vignette Two, I had Jessica shout "You're AWFUL!" at Cassandra, and I moved a die at the same time.  That's an opinion, after all.

Fiction example:  Cordelia Chase, from Buffy, is a tremendously likeable character.  I love it when she shows up on the screen.  And her opinions on other characters (especially ones I rather like) are relentlessly negative ... and yet, I like her, even as I disagree with her.  Wierd!

Quote from: TonyLBI have no sensible explanation for why a character becomes more appealing (at least to me) the moment they give an opinion on another character.

Emphasis added -- ah! I get it now: you see a correlation between opinionated (in the mild, 'has/expresses an opinion' sense) and how much you like them...

Therefore the mechanic you're working on drives character likability -- since it encourages players to have their characters express opinions...

Got it! (I think -- I totally didn't get that from your original post). In addition to not seeing how the mechanic applied to likablility, I was getting confused on the connotations of "likable" -- I would call Buffy's Cordellia *interesting.* I think I have the same reaction to her you do; I wouldn't use the term "likable" since I think of "likable" as someone I'd want to have over for dinner or hang out with (Xander/Willow would be "likable")

But I see what you're saying.

I think your mechanic probably incentivizes the players to crystalize and express things that would, ordinarily, not come up in the game, or would be expressed in a more socially exceptable way.

I think it probably encourages a level of melodrama in the game, which sounds like a good thing. It's also interesting in that there really isn't any element of mechanical risk involved -- the character expresses an opinion. Dice move. A lot of game mechanics hinge on risk; this one doesn't appear to.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBYou'd think, wouldn't you?  That's my point.  I have no sensible explanation for why a character becomes more appealing (at least to me) the moment they give an opinion on another character.  But they do.  Isn't that strange and cool?

You can say anything, positive or negative, so long as it's an opinion.  Like, at the end of Vignette Two, I had Jessica shout "You're AWFUL!" at Cassandra, and I moved a die at the same time.  That's an opinion, after all.

Fiction example:  Cordelia Chase, from Buffy, is a tremendously likeable character.  I love it when she shows up on the screen.  And her opinions on other characters (especially ones I rather like) are relentlessly negative ... and yet, I like her, even as I disagree with her.  Wierd!

(Tangent: While I agree with you on Cordelia, I don't think you'd like her nearly as much if you were Willow [softer side of Sears] or Xander [You're the Zeppo]. As a character, she's awesome. As an actual human being you're interacting with, she's a bitch, at least in the earlier episodes.)

That out of the way, have you heard of the endowment effect? In economics it refers to a psychological effect that occurs once someone takes possession of something. If you don't have something, it is worth less to you than when you once you acquire it. I can see something similar happening here, where an NPC that gives an opinion, and with it dice, endows the players with a sense of attachment.

It's not a perfect analogy, and may be stretching the endowment effect to the breaking point, but I think it's a way to view the process that may tell you something.

On a related note, sometimes players viscerally hate an NPC (which I think is also related to the above). Have you had this happen yet?

Quote from: apparition13On a related note, sometimes players viscerally hate an NPC (which I think is also related to the above). Have you had this happen yet?

I've had players who delighted in having their characters totally hate and loathe another character.  But, since they were delighting in it so much, they as players were actually quite happy to see that hated character arrive in a scene.

It's been a long time since I've had a character that players hated so much that their inclusion was actually a negative for a scene.  Or at least a long time since I've had such a character appear more than once

Quote from: TonyLBI've had players who delighted in having their characters totally hate and loathe another character.  But, since they were delighting in it so much, they as players were actually quite happy to see that hated character arrive in a scene.

It's been a long time since I've had a character that players hated so much that their inclusion was actually a negative for a scene.  Or at least a long time since I've had such a character appear more than once

I have had characters that annoyed the other PC's so much that they "voted them off the island"

In general though, I think the "love-to-hate-that-guy" is more common.

That's why I think *interesting* might be a better choice of term than *likable*

Cheers,
-E.

I think I get what you mean, but "interesting" has other connotations.  I'm not sure I'd called Jessica interesting, for instance.  Her appeal is not of the kind that makes me want to dig deeper, to understand why she is as she is.  I'm just happy to see her "on-screen," y'know?