'An interesting character. Not necessarily a likeable one, not even necessarily a relatable one, but an interesting one. The best example of a complex main character in all of science fiction is Robinette Broadhead in Frederik Pohl’s Hugo and Nebula Award-winning Gateway, which is told as flashbacks during Broadhead’s psychoanalytic sessions with a computerized shrink. He’s not at all likeable, but, wow, is he ever fascinating.'
It also applies to player-characters in games. Players can be too worried that others will judge them personally by the characters they choose to play. Screw that. There's nothing more boring than a game populated by decent people, however much we'd like real life to be like that. Make your characters interesting, and never mind if they're nice.
Some more thoughts from me on that here and here. But you're always having to put up with what I think, so if you're pressed for time look at Mr Sawyer's advice. Like Pohl, he too has won the Hugo and Nebula Awards. He says, 'I was born to write for [the Star Trek] franchise!' and I concur. I would love to see his take on the ST universe.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I think it is a lot harder to pull off than people think. I've seen poor roleplayers hide behind it as an excuse ("but you're not SUPPOSED to like my PC") when they are disrupting the game for everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThere's also a big, ultra-subjective question of taste. Some awful characters are a delight to read and/or have in the party. Others, not so much. Author/player skill isn't even the deciding factor. De Maupassant's Bel-Ami has a main character I would utterly despise in real life, yet I devoured the book in less than a week. Zola's Bête humaine also has a reprehensible protagonist, and after 25 pages I decided I had no interest in reading about him, and gave up.
The trick in RPGs is to make sure your unlikable character amuses the rest of the players in your group.
I don't expect other PCs to amuse me, but they should be interesting if they are going to take a leading role. (Example from another medium: Guy Gardner could have been a really interesting character, but the writers chickened out and made him amusing instead.) I've talked before about how I'm often appalled by the PCs in games I run, but I wouldn't have them change on that account.
DeleteThat does highlight another option, namely the bland PC who mainly takes a supporting role. That's a valid choice for players who don't care for the limelight. Gregson doesn't need to be interesting as long as Holmes is.
I'm not familiar with either Bel-Ami or Bête Humaine, but after what you've said the latter now has to be the next book I read!
Maybe 'amuse' wasn't the best word choice. What I meant was, they should interest the other players, or at least not annoy them (and depending on the group, this may or may not apply to the other PCs).
DeleteI really wanted to like La bête humaine. I got my copy from a bouquiniste along the Seine, and the cover picture looks like it should have been on a 1950s pulp detective novel. Such a disappointment!
Yes, indeed, that's what the post is about: be interesting, don't worry about likeable. But you're right, it's important that the character you're playing is interesting to others and not just yourself!
DeleteI'm going to try both the Zola and the De Maupassant. I've only recently embarked on the former (perversely I started with Germinal) and I know the latter so far only by his short stories.