So, in our post game discussion all my players agreed that they get the most fun from their characters only during long term* play. My one offs and limited series was interesting from the point of view of setting and plots but they don't get as much from their characters.

Now, I can understand this. Long term campaigns are ideal for character development. For my part, I get a kick out of seeing how the pcs evolve not to mention how the world changes with the passage of time - adventures.

But here's the thing. Is short term play really not condusive to character development? Because to my mind if this is the case, then one of the things that is really great about rpgs is missing. Now I realize that not all rpgs do the same thing. That playing a character has it's own rewards and character development is but one aspect of gaming.

Also it's kind of misleading to say there is no development in short term play, because I suppose there are character arcs which pcs go through. They start of one way and evolve/end in another.

So, for folks who only or most of the time run/play in short term campaigns, do you get the most of your characters from this kind of play?

*I suppose what constitutes long term varies, but I figure a year or more of consistenly playing the same campaign is a safe definition.

Regards,
David R

I can safely claim to have tried both. I guess it's a different thing. Character development in a long game looks a bit like The Bold and the Beautiful, or other long-running daytime soap. Character development in short games goes at a more rapid pace, like a movie – you've got to make scenes count and reveal the character through action.

By character "development" I assume you mean improvement. But there's also change.

If a young bloke is a bit dumb but a good footballer, and later is well-educated and a football coach, he may not have "improved" in most game system's terms, but he's changed, and that change is interesting.

You can have a lot of character change in a shorter game. I run closed-ended campaigns of 8-20 sessions, and the characters change a lot.

I love the changes that come out of long-term campaign play - it's mostly why I game.  That and the sweet-ass cool stuff and killing things.

But I agree with JBOz, you can get that kind of movement and alteration in a short-term period; it just requires a bit more focused placement at the top of the campaign.

Usually in games that I run, it takes a good month or more for a group to shake out and discover the emotional or plot hooks that they're going to hang their hats on.

With a shorter period, I really frontload that stuff: background info that has serious effects on the party right away, encouraging them (and me) to come up with some very specific places (character and physical) to start from, introducing a recurring villain that that one or more of the characters already knows they have a history with.  

Also, if NPCs act as if they have a deep, dark, serious or ridiculous, laughable history with the characters, the players usually fall right in line.

You could also just get them to step up and play those one-offs or few sessions like they have history together and its the end of the campaign....

Change is a good word for what I'm getting at Jimbob. And Reimdall is pretty accurate in why this is possible in long term play. Also he and droog make a good point about making scenes count in short term games.

Now, when I talk about changes it's only about roleplaying. I've observed that it takes time for my players to get a feel for their characters. The first few games, their performances are pretty stiff, but they slowly as the game progress get a better handle on their characters and their performences come alive.

Furthermore characters change I think through the decisions they make. IME this takes time. But some of you I think have managed to make scenes count. The problem with the way how I do things in short term games, is that there is a whiff of style over substance in my staging of scenes (pretty to look at, but nothing much there). So, I reckon' that I too need time, to get a handle on the campaign.

So what then do folks who run short terms games do, to get to the heart of the scene and evoke changes in the pcs? Some examples would help

Regards,
David R

I think I agree with your players.  Short term, I don't really feel any character development.  I'd say that for the first year of a character's playtime, I'm not having the character grow and expand as much as I'm defining where they started from in the first place.  By the end of that time, I've probably got their background nailed down, and I have their personality figured out.  They have their quirks and hobbies.

After that is when the development goes on, and it's almost universally a very gradual process.  It requires a LOT of playtime to realistically change the character's attitudes and beliefs from that basic concept.

James Michael Saxton started off as a drunk taking the last opportunity offerred him to begin a new life.  Over time he became a respected warrior and unit commander.  Slowly he became more introspective, and began asking the questions of "why am I doing the things I do?"  His life changed when he saw the eyes of his baby girl for the first time, and he said, "I'm going to change the world for you."  Past that point he became an extremely dedicated, tireless champion of what he believed was right.  And, in the end, he was willing to sacrifice himself not only for his little girl's future, but for the future of the human race.  That took about 10 years of play, and isn't bad for a character who didn't care about anything and wanted to put his life behind him.

Michael Saxton was James's (above) son from an alternate reality where the bad guys won.  Michael had seen everyone he ever knew or cared about brutally slaughtered by aliens.  His thing was that he was the awesome pilot, the survivor.  He had the skill to pull through when everyone else died all around him.  He started off as an extremely haunted person who didn't want to care about anyone again.  He had basically become an engine of warfare, and little else.  Michael's story of development was the typical one of learning how to be human again, relearning how to care for others, and remember why he had fought in the first place.  He also had the kink to his personality that he was always duty first, and his duty was to all of humanity (in opposition to his father, who started off only concerned about himself at the beginning).  By the end, Michael realized he had a more important duty to those close to him rather than to the world at large.  He died in a last desperate attempt to save his daughter from possession by an alien being.  Michael's development took about 4 years of play time.

Those are the characters I really think about when I think about development.  Both grew organically.  Although I had an idea of the story I wanted to tell with Michael, it wasn't something planned out and pre-destined.  The development of the characters just happened over months of games and events piling on top of one other to shape things.

Quote from: GabrielThe development of the characters just happened over months of games and events piling on top of one other to shape things.

This is exactly what my players said. And hell, I agree. The campaign world changes over time too. And this will always be more or less my style of gaming.

But, I'm also interested in character changes in short term play. Sometimes short term games are the only way to go for some of the stuff I want to do. Now, if they (my players) don't get much fun out of their characters in short term play, that kind of blows. So...

Regards,
David R

Currently, about the most effective technique I know involves front-loading the situation, as Reimdall said. Place the character in crisis right away and see which way they jump. Drive forward mercilessly.

I think it depends on what you call "short term" play. You've said that "long term" was more than a year of real time - but you didn't say how many sessions that is. One month of university-style daily sessions is a different thing to the same number of sessions, weekly over six months, and different again to fortnightly sessions over three months, or a year.

I think for significant character change - aside from sudden stuff like losing a limb - you need probably 6 sessions, with at least a week between them. The idea of the character needs a bit of time to digest in the player's mind. Less than a week is probably too short, more than two weeks is probably too long, they lose the rhythm...

Batman Begins said, "it's not who we are inside, but what we do that defines us." So you need to give them something to do - choices to make, actions to take.

Obvious choices don't help much in defining the character. "Do I let the baby drown?" isn't a real choice, most characters will choose to save the baby, only a caricature will choose to let the baby drown. A character has some depth, more than one dimension. This is shown by their reactions, their choices when the "right" way isn't obvious.

You can see that sort of thing over in the Craft forum, where I talk about how I created my last campaign, which went for 14 sessions and had lots of character change. Basically it's the old dilemma, choose between love vs duty, that sort of thing.

Most modern movies chicken out of real dilemmas. If the guy is forced to choose between saving his family and saving the town, he chooses his family, but saves the town anyway. This doesn't show his character, really. If whatever choice he makes, everything turns out good, then it's not a significant choice. We're not Hollywood with millions of dollars invested in the success of the thing, so we're limited to that piss-weak line of bullshit.

Give them dilemmas, and a reason to care about their choices, and make their choices have consequences which matter. Let them choose between (for example) love and duty, and the one they didn't choose turns to shit, the one they chose flourishes. The choices we make define us. Then you'll get significant character change.

Discuss it with the players first, though. Otherwise they might get all upset when they find out it's not Hollywood.

I'm already signed up for the JimBobOz newsletter, so it goes without saying that he makes all kinds of sense.  Another factor is group size.  His figure of 6 if you push conflict and dilema at them is good for a group of 4 or 5, but if I've got 2 or 3 PCs they each get more spotlight time, so I could get it done in 4 episodes probably.

What he says about defining moments is very true.  My philosophy is not to take what the players tell me about their characters at face value.  Make them *show* you.  You say your character is honest?  Put them in a situation where the group will greatly benefit if they decieve a friend.  Is he brave?  Here's a situation where he may be badly hurt if he stands up to a villian.  Are most of them going to get to do what they say?  Yeah, but they'll love actually getting to do it.

They have to be real choices as well, that is the game has to be able to go on and it needs to be reasonable.  Saving the drowning baby is a good example of a bad dilemma.  Hell, Hannibal Lector would probably save a drowning baby.  My favorite example, and example of how to fuck it up, is from the first Spiderman movie.  The Green Goblin stands on a bridge.  From one side is a traincar full off schoolchildren, from the other dangles the woman Spiderman loves.  The goblin drops them both, and Spiderman has to decide if he saves Mary Jane or the innocent children.  Hollywood of course pussied out and let him save both, but I believe in the original comic he saved the kids and let MJ fall to her death.  That really tells you something about how driven this character is, the sacrifices he's prepared to make.  And the thing is, if he'd gone the other way you'd have learned just as much about him.

Pushing this conflict leads to fast character development, and IMO totally awesome games.  If you just let the game meander with no direction it may take a year, but if you drive conflict you can do it better is far less time.

Quote from: MaddmanSaving the drowning baby is a good example of a bad dilemma.  Hell, Hannibal Lector would probably save a drowning baby.

Agreed, if only for snacking later.

I've got to agree with everything here. If you have a long campaign in mind (using the plural you of the group) then you can let things develop naturally. If your time is short, you need to force the issue with dilemmas that reveal to the player - and everyone else - what the character is.

-clash

Quote from: David RSo what then do folks who run short terms games do, to get to the heart of the scene and evoke changes in the pcs? Some examples would help

Yeah, it seems like choices with real consequences are the thing.

- Character who's a soldier is a approached by his well-loved superior officer and mentor, who wants him to participate in a military coup.  This is obviously a huge deal for the officer; if the character says no, he's on the serious shit list with real consequences, if he says yes, they're both traitors.

- Buddying up with organized crime to save the family or friends, but the organized crime jobs for a group of serious bad-asses like the party become more and more odious.  And the family is in real danger if the party demurrs, and the kingpins actually can squash the characters like bugs if they want.

- Dueling motivations within the party, again, like JimBobOz said, with tough repercussions. If they save the burgomaster, something (idea, person, puppy) Character 1 loves will die.  If they assassinate the burgomaster, it screws the reputation/love-interest/sweet old grandma of Character 2.  

Of course, creating tough choices requires background histories, detailed setting, and the like, but most of all things the characters are motivated/driven by.  I very much like to let my guys and gals discover that on their own with less arbitrary creation at the beginning in a long-term job, but I think that's the biggest thing for a shorter campaign - cooperatively set up some big motivations, outstanding issues and NPC relationships before you start.

>Yeah, it seems like choices with real consequences are the thing.

I have to disagree.  I'll give an example to illustrate.

Campaign - Alien Invasion for reasons similar to DCs back in the early 90s'.  But this time, the aliens wish to wipe the Earth clean.  Stop the 'mutants' from evolving/rising again.  The campaign had more of an Elementals feel than DC feel, but that isn't important.  To fight the invasion, arises a program similar to Strike Force Moritory.  "We fight so other may not.  We die so others may live."  Moto for the first few game sessions (1st team iteration as well).  2nd team, new moto - "We fight so other may not.  We die so others may live.  We go to Hell, so others may reach Heaven."  Not a big change, but now you know the group has a religious-right background.  Doesn't change the game, players or what is happening.  But how do these "grown heroes" react to this change?  How do the other heroes react to this group, now that it has change?  In the game, most characters stayed, but 2 left the group and became "loose cannons", per the group.

That small change was very powerful for some of the characters (possibly players) and nothing at all to others.  Simple, small and you see a new character landscape.

I'm thinking about doing that campaign again, although I won't use that event again.

BobManGM

Quote from: MaddmanMy favorite example, and example of how to fuck it up, is from the first Spiderman movie.  The Green Goblin stands on a bridge.  From one side is a traincar full off schoolchildren, from the other dangles the woman Spiderman loves.  The goblin drops them both, and Spiderman has to decide if he saves Mary Jane or the innocent children.  Hollywood of course pussied out and let him save both, but I believe in the original comic he saved the kids and let MJ fall to her death.  That really tells you something about how driven this character is, the sacrifices he's prepared to make.

Not quite: he tried to do the same thing in the comic as in the movie (though the girlfriend was Gwen Stacy), so his actions didn't reveal anything about him. But the girlfriend died anyway, either because the GG had already killed her, or because the whiplash due to sudden deceleration was too much. The result was still character development, though.

I think the movie did the right thing, BTW, because the pace of development would simply have been too great otherwise. There was already a ton of tragedy and angst; killing the girlfriend would have been over the top and it also wouldn't have set up the next movie as well.

So: pay attention to pacing.

I like long term campaigns, but won't reject playing a short term one. It's just that I love the character development involved in the former.

I'm reluctant to play one-shots, though. If I'm going to spend the next four to six hours playing something, I want it be a good experience, not a fire-and-forget game. That's why it's  a great idea to have a boardgame or (lighter) secondary campaign as backup plan.