There's a fun and fascinating quote over on the Wikipedia page for Mission Impossible (TV Show) that mentions the creator of the show deliberately told the writers not to focus on the character's backgrounds, keeping them semi-generic so the focus could remain on the caper. Watching the series on Netflix, this seems to have extended both backwards and forwards in time, none of the characters had a real history to them, and they never really developed meaningful relationships with each other or others outside their group.
To some, this seemed surface and shallow. Leaving these characters as almost generic stereotypes was dramatically unsatisfying, as you could never see someone's daughter, or have two of the cast members have a continuing romance. You could never make any real deep connection to the characters (though many did), and the dramatic payoff from normal human interactions never happened.
In another sense, keeping these characters as generic stand-ins for an anybody made the series more approachable to the audience. In a sense, if the team's resident disguise person was an 'anybody' - that anybody could be you. In a sense, superheroes in their modern 'reboot' incarnation are the same way, they are almost generic ideals that people can imagine themselves as being. The fantasy fulfillment of being a superhero drives the popularity of these figures, and since any one of them could be rebooted with a different origin - that origin could just be you.
Another reason for keeping the characters generic and stereotypes of specialist was the format. Episodic television that could be picked up at any time was a lot easier to get into if the characters had generic roles, and you can see this in use in many television shows, such as Star Trek. Kirk is the dashing captain, Spock is the logical science officer, and Scotty is the hard drinking engineer. These characters as well are pretty generic is a sense, and they start each episode more-or-less anew.
Stop, pivot, and apply this to roleplaying games. In an 'episodic adventure' role-playing game, why would we need characters with detailed back stories and continuing story lines? The old-school D&D fit this model well, with most fighters being fighters, and most mages being the same as each other. Your party's thief was your combination con man, sneaky guy, and trap specialist. Any thief fit this role well, and there was no need for backgrounds or future histories. Your class was your role.
Shift forward to modern roleplaying games, with detailed character builds, backgrounds, and huge arcing story lines written into modules. These are all very dramatically satisfying, excellent for novelizations, and definite crowd pleasers. But in a sense, they are less optimal for episodic adventures. All of a sudden, not all thieves are the same, we need to worry about character builds, and my thief may not know how to pick locks. Your character's applicability to a role depends on your character build, which makes the game less appealing to those looking for quick episodic content.
Do detailed characters take away from the plot? You could make an argument here, if a majority of the rules for a game are for character builds and options, the focus of the game shifts to 'hero building' rather than 'adventures.' Are you building a character to solve problems, or encouraging the player to solve the problem. Does my build limit the ways I can solve a problem, be it combat, social, or puzzle? This all can be summed up by the question, 'Who is solving the next problem? The character build or the player?'
Does detailed specific character builds reduce a players connection to the game? Not exactly, but the strength of the connection between the player and the character is very strong, just like the connection between a reader and a character in a novel. But one could say the player's connection with the game's concept is weakened a bit. Since not anybody can be a hero, these people have to come from specific world, backgrounds, and skill sets - since I as myself will never have access to these, my connection to these fantasy worlds and situations will be weakened somewhat.
It's a fascinating thought, and one with interesting applications when designing role-playing games.
No comments:
Post a Comment