Nikolaj noticed that my descriptions of a certain girl in his scenario seemed designed to appeal to him, and then in the ensuing discussion he commented about The Dancing Princess, in that it appears to him that that scenario is designed to perhaps seduce or at least induce the player character into falling in love with one of the fictional girls.
On the one hand, I categorically deny that I ever plot to have player characters fall in love with specific non-player characters. Well, no, that's not one hundred percent true--it is part of the plot in Prisoner of Zenda that the verser falls in love with the princess (or in Ahmetia's case, the prince); but that is an unattainable love, as the princess will almost certainly do the "right thing" in the end and marry the king, not the "play actor" as Rupert of Hentzau will call him (her). The love for the princess becomes a very complicating factor, because the character is faced with the conflict that doing the right thing will result in not getting the desired reward, but doing the wrong thing will mean having to keep the secret for a very long time.
However, The Dancing Princess does indeed present the character with three girls (I started running it gender-reversed once, but don't remember what happened to that one), and offers the character the opportunity to marry the one of his choice (and to receive all the benefits of being the king's son-in-law). It thus appears that I am attempting to hook the player into falling in love with one of the characters.
In one sense, I am. But the very design of the scenario means I actually am not. What I have done in that scenario is create the basics of three female characters, each of whom would appeal to certain kinds of men, and then let the players discover them.
- Margaret, the eldest, is the girl who is proper and dignified, almost unapproachable in her regal splendor. She appeals to the part of a man for whom a bride is something to be achieved or earned, that is, whose own worth is at stake in the measure of the woman he marries. He will be the king, eventually, if he marries her; meanwhile, he will be the prince royal, and the woman on his arm will make him look good. (I actually made that sound more appealing than it does to me; but that's part of trying to run effective non-player characters.)
- Nerene, the overshadowed second child, is the quite withdrawn type who seems so sweet and so unknowable. She virtually screams for someone to protect and hold her, and in so doing she appeals to that man who would be the protector, who wants the admiration and adoration of one woman who thinks him everything in the universe. He volunteers to be her hero, and she accepts him as such. (And maybe this is the one that most appeals to me.)
- Olivia is the fun-loving youngest, a bit impish, a bit of a tomboy, loves the outdoors, loves games and play, probably loves pillow fights and snowball fights and sneaking out at night, riding full-gallop across the open countryside, tumbling down a hillside into a lake. She excites the adventurous man, who wants to go along for the game, and so enjoys her company that he wants to be with her forever. (Interestingly, this is the girl most of my players choose; I do not know whether I play her best or they are mostly interested in that type.)
Since the three girls are sketched not more fully than that (and that might actually be a more detailed sketch of their personalities and certainly of their appeal than the book offers), they are somewhat fluid. I do not find this unreasonable; after all, I think that when people are attracted to each other, they do become somewhat fluid, each trying to be what the other hopes and trying to accept what the other is. Thus if a player character starts exploring some aspect of one of the girls that I had not considered (Does Margaret read novels? Does Nerene bake cookies? Does Olivia know how to fence?) I usually ask myself which would more appeal to the player, and then consider whether that's how I want to play it. After all, it might be that it's more interesting and more enticing to have the characters learn something together, or have the player character teach the non-player character; or it might be better to have the non-player character already excel at something in which the player character has some interest and experience. I'm reminded of a Leverage episode in which Elliot (the muscle) faces off against a very capable female Russian fighter, and after dealing each other a few bruises they become quite attracted to each other. On the other hand, quite a few girls have managed to snuggle up to a desired guy by displaying (sometimes feigning) ignorance of something he could teach her, providing the excuse for the context in which they can spend time together.
I'm not sure where this thread is going. I'm somehow pretty certain that Eric is going to have something really useful to say about all this, and maybe we can hear from David (who fell for one of my werewolf girls), Adam (who married a girl created in a moment of necessity), Shawn (who carefully surveyed the available girls in the Ruritanian noble households before courting one), Graeme (who has had good relationships with several girls but never closed any into a romance), and John 2 (who ducked the princesses entirely and saved the day because it needed saving, not because of the suggested reward). What causes a player character to fall in love with a non-player character? Where do you cross the line between facilitating and scheming--and when if ever should you? Does that kind of story interest you, or would you rather simply avoid it? (Another Game Ideas Unlimited article comes to mind, Game Ideas Unlimited: Embraces, so obviously I've addressed this before.)
--M. J. Young
John 2 (who ducked the princesses entirely and saved the day because it needed saving, not because of the suggested reward)
To me, the princesses weren't appealing. In a sense, forcing her to marry you? I wouldn't have accepted that, even if I had been enticed by the reward. Slavery is wrong, no matter what form it takes, even arranged marriages. I'm sure I wouldn't have minded hanging out with them, but it would have been more platonic. My plans after I saved the day (If I hadn't botched) were to bring Mr. Smith and family to the castle, and to learn everything I could from anyone I could. If Nerene could teach me to cook, and Olivia could teach me kickboxing, all the better. My verser character wouldn't want to rule the kingdom. I would just be an adviser to the king or something.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
If it's about the NPC getting the character's attention, I would have been far more likely to marry one of Mr. Smith's daughters than the princesses. At least then, I am assured that her feelings are real, and she's not just honoring her sworn, noble duty.
That's an interesting concept; on the other hand, I think that there was as close to a genuine affection between the princesses and their rescuers in previous runs of the tale as one can have in a fictional game setting. There is first of all the fact that the verser has proved himself to be of the sort of stuff that will take risks for her sake, and second that he has succeeded in overcoming some very formidable odds. Then of course no one forces the verser to make the choice the moment he steps back into the castle, and if you take a few months to get to know the girls it might emerge that you are particularly fond of one of them, and that she reciprocates your feelings.
In reality, I find that one of the most attractive qualities in a member of the opposite sex is the appearance that they are attracted to you. It is not decisive, certainly, but it is a strong contributory factor. If you actually like one of the princesses, that's going to make a difference in her feelings toward you anyway.
Besides, you need to watch Fiddler on the Roof: people in arranged marriages do love each other, and very much so. It is a very western/American viewpoint that suggests that such arrangements are not romantic.
--M. J. Young
There is first of all the fact that the verser has proved himself to be of the sort of stuff that will take risks for her sake
I didn't take the risk for her sake. I took the risk because demons have no place on God's green earth, no matter what universe it happens to be in. The fact that they were tormenting the girls just added that much more desire to kill them.
Besides, you need to watch Fiddler on the Roof: people in arranged marriages do love each other, and very much so. It is a very western/American viewpoint that suggests that such arrangements are not romantic.
I don't doubt that for a second MJ. Just as I don't doubt that there were slaves who loved being slaves. It doesn't change the fact that they were in fact, slaves.
(Doing Therapy)
But is it a bad thing (arranged marriage, slavery, etc.) if it makes the person therein happy? What if the people involved would be worse off if they hadn't had a marriage arranged for them (especially in cultures that allow no other romantic contact), or had been born paupers rather than slaves (where at least they will generally be fed and housed)? Everything is a matter of perspective, I suppose...
Or maybe I'm just playing Devil's Advocate and completely messing with you.
But then, isn't that dependent on your point of view, too?
I know the things that caught my fancy about my Arabelle are that she is younger than me by a fair margin (I've always liked younger girls), pretty, and smart. She reads and is interested in things, she can carry on a conversation, and she has just enough of that self-conscious nervousness about her where I feel like I can really be there for her and help her become something really impressive, which I also find attractive (she's not a doormat submissive, but she's not someone so completely assured of herself that I don't actually matter to her either). But yes, the fact that she seemed at all interested in me helped rather a lot, too.
Osevens, you have a knack lately for proving me wrong really quickly. Didn't mean to derail the thread. I think MJ would like some more thoughts on his original topic.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Osevens, the thing that I cannot get over is that, no matter how attractive the girl is, she's still, technically, a 50 something man named Mark. I can't get over that fact. Although I know my character is extremely attracted to Lauren, she is still a 50 something man named Mark. I'm sure philosophers the world over could make a heyday with how this defines attraction.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
I don't want to restart the slavery topic, but I really see your point Osevens. In the movie Stuck, a recently homeless man is approached by the police and told that he can either sleep somewhere other than the park or get arrested. He leaves. Later he says "I should have let the guy arrest me. At least then I would have a place to sleep." While I wouldn't want to get arrested either, I can certainly see how I might have considered it in that case. What is incarceration, if not a form of slavery? So yeah, point made.
(Doing Therapy)
Put in the situation of the of a king offering an arranged marriage with his daughter, I would decline, and ask instead for the opportunity to become a friend to their family, and just a friend. Should romance develop, let it. I prefer to take my time and truly understand a person (as much as anyone can understand another person) before considering romance.
Yeah Brock, that's more or less what I had in mind.
(Doing Therapy)
Of course, the other side of the coin is that the princesses are not going to be permitted to marry someone of whom their father does not approve. For one thing, Margaret's husband will be the next king--unless Margaret never has a husband, in which case the guy who married Nerene or Olivia will have to take that task. Also, as we learned from the film King Ralph, it's important for there to be legitimate heirs descended from the other girls in case the primary line fails--if Margaret has all girls, it will be Nerene's son who rules.
All of that is to say, for someone who is not already a recognized nobleman (and even for someone who is), "You can marry the princess" is a big deal. That's an automatic approval which saves you the worry of whether the king will approve.
Looked at from the other end, if the king promised to make you a friend of the family--well, that literally is the definition of a "Peer of the Realm", as a "peer" is a member of your circle of near equals and the realm is the nation which is personified in the king. So you are now one of the noblemen--but you still don't have any assurance that he would approve your marriage to his daughter. After all, you're old, or your grandfather was a horse thief, or there was that land dispute three centuries back or a question of your mother's paternity or some reason why you might not be the appropriate man for his daughter. This promise bypasses that: you may marry one of the daughters. They don't really expect to have any say in who they marry anyway--they marry the man their father approves--so you have the opportunity to meet them and court them and consider whether you might want to marry one of them. You can say no thank you, and although the King will probably want to know the reason, I don't think I've found a verser worth his salt who can't spin a good explanation.
As to the slavery question, the Mosaic Code included the rule that a man could sell himself into slavery to pay his debts, but he had to be released after seven years; but then, if he wished to stay slave of his present master, he could ask to become a permanent slave in that household, having his ear pierced and a ring inserted to show his status as a slave. It was recognized that there were advantages to being the slave of someone who would provide food, clothing, and housing, and tell you what you should be doing. It's really a very modern notion (arising from Kant and the Enlightenment, I think) that it is better to be autonomous.
In my D&D Alignment Quiz (there is also a self-scoring javascript version, and a CGI version in German which I can't read but I have fun trying to guess at) I catch a lot of people with the slavery question. Good characters are not against slavery in itself; they are against the way it can be and often is abused by masters whose power is not limited. It is chaos that opposes slavery, because chaos stands for the autonomous rights of individuals. Law stands for the established structures of society. But then, I've written a lot about that in the Game Ideas Unlimited series, if I can get them all indexed again.
--M. J. Young
I think, if I were to marry a princess, it would have been Margaret. Then, the king would have a little "accident" a few days later.
I love that quiz, and I haven't looked at it in years. But I guess that ought to be a different thread. So now it is.
--M. J. Young
I know by saying this I guarantee I will never see Dancing Princess, which makes me sad because it's a world I would dearly love to play: For me it would almost certainly be Nerene. That withdrawn, someone-to-protect me attitude, on someone who is at the same time quiet without being a complete doormat... I'm a total mush for that type. So I would never be king, but being her hero and perhaps commander-in-chief of the local military would be more than enough for me. (Olivia, although the youngest and probably fairest, is too much of a jock for me - I don't like that type - and Margaret is just too cold; that unapproachable attitude makes her, well, unapproachable.) But that's just me, your mileage may vary.
Osevens, that assumes that the character is marrying her for love. As I said, marry Margaret, then the king has an "Accident" and you're now the king. You might as well be a god for all the power you would have. Then it's just a simple matter of retraining Margaret, and you have a medieval dungeon to do it with. Not saying I would do this. I didn't even go to the castle. I'm just imagining what someone else might do in that situation.
Harry--I think I've already said it, but yeah, I'm a sucker for Nerene, too.
But you're almost a married man; I don't know that Arabella would approve.
--M. J. Young
Tis true.
What do you do if a married character drops into Dancing Princess?
I look for intellect first, then open-mindedness, then a sense of adventure. That third princess sounds interesting.
Well, such a character has an inherent excuse for why he can't marry the princess, but asserts that he would be interested in the other rewards. Besides, if a player character pulls it off right, he can wind up with an invisibility cloak, a pair of flying boots, and as much gold, silver, and gems as he can carry, even without the additional reward.
--M. J. Young
I didn't get the flying boots. Oh wait, you have to actually solve the scenario to do that.
It's also a high magic world, right? Couldn't the intrepid adventurer use that Torture Spirit Power spell to eventually bind the three demons to his service (or drive them all insane) rather than killing them, thereby saving the princesses and gaining the service (or babbling insanity, one or the other) of three demons (who at the very least make good magic item fuel, even if they're too intractable (or slobbering nuts by then) to bind, and who really feels bad about using soul-eating demons for magic fuel?).
Personally, I thought it was fun just to blast them with an AK-47, but as you would say, your mileage may vary.
I still can't wrap my head around the Dancing Princess scenario. Why would the verser investigate that? The guy who tells him about it obviously isn't concerned enough to go. Why should the verser be? I realized a while ago that even considering going to the castle and making the manacles to use was completely out of character for me. After the blacksmith told me the story, I would have said "That's nice, oh well, not my problem" and joined him at the forge. If some rich guy came on the news and said that his daughters were having the same problem, same offer, same rules, how many people would really go and check it out? I would wager most players check it out because "It's what I'm 'supposed' to do" and not because they really would. I'm not knocking the scenario at all. It was fun. I just think most people in the real situation would do what I did and not go.
Once I found out about the demons, I introduced them to my good friends, The Bullets, but as far as going to the castle and figuring it out, why? The demons were my incentive, not the reward.
I think several capable guys (or guys that assume themselves capable) would go because it's a rich man's daughter, and they would expect a reward of some kind.
But there is more good in people then you think. Look at Haïti. How many people could say, "not my problem", but still go?
The reward was offered as part of Da Rulez. I got a job, I came out of there with over 10 pounds of gold and over 25 pounds of silver, before I even reached the castle. Why do I need the reward? Killing the demons though. THAT was reason to go. If the Great Referee in the Sky wants me to be an effective servant, he shouldn't give me a mystery to solve. However, if something just falls into my lap, I will be far more likely to consider it worthy of my attention.
Look at Haïti. How many people could say, "not my problem", but still go?
Not to derail the thread, but where was Haiti when we had the San Fransisco earthquake in (was it 1989???) Did they send relief workers to help us? (If they did, feel free to correct me, but I bet they didn't) The United States sticks its nose into the business of everyone else in the world, and we WONDER why people fly planes into our buildings.
I want to correct you on something else. It isn't just Americans helping Haiti.
But probably, if nobody helped, it was probably because America is rich and powerful enough to take care of itself, while Haiti or the Asian countries hit by that tsunami a few years back, where all poor.
Well, in case you haven't guessed already, the non-involvement philosophy that I have isn't just applied to versing. It's applied to life.
I suspect if you fight John on non-involvement you'll get him more enthused for his position, but if you charm him with the possibilities he will find his way to becoming more involved.
Also, John, don't underestimate boredom (which the guy who wrote Dawn to Decadence thought was one of the major forces in changing art schools of thought). Few of us are like 'Captain Awesome' on 'Chuck' who is a heart doctor and an extreme sports guy and still needed more adrenaline, but we all get bored.
I suspect if you fight John on non-involvement you'll get him more enthused for his position, but if you charm him with the possibilities he will find his way to becoming more involved.
I suspect that you are 100% correct Mr. Ashley. I am starting to understand why some players get involved though. It's not so much a "I don't want to get involved" philosophy, it's more like a "Give me one good reason why I should get involved" philosophy.
You can get the boots without figuring out the whole thing, and without winning. You just have to realize what they are when you encounter them.
John:
Population of United States: ~308.5 million
Population of Haiti: ~9.7 million
Ratio: ~3.1%
That is, there are three Haitians for every hundred Americans.
Per capita income of United States: ~$40.2K
Per capita income of Haiti: ~$1.3K
Ratio: 3.2%
So for every hundred dollars the "average" American makes, the "average" Haitian makes about three dollars twenty cents.
America does receive disaster relief assistance from other countries. However, we are among the most populous nations in the world, and among the wealthiest both in total and per capita.
I understand that a few years back Bill Gates lost several million dollars of his net worth when Microsoft stock slipped. Did you send contributions to help him? I must admit that I did not. At his worst, he was still far better off than I. I believe, though, that Mr. Gates has made significant contributions to various charitable institutions which are assisting the poor, and even if I am not one of those recipients I can still respect that. We don't really expect the beggars on the street to pitch in to help the millionaire businessman who has a bad month; yet we do expect the millionaire businessman to help the beggars on the street, even if he had a bad month.
We sort of expect the same thing of countries--except that in this regard, we're the rich guy.
So now you know how all those very rich people feel about you collecting government benefits that come out of their assets. Either the strong have an obligation to the weak and the wealthy to the poor and the healthy to the sick, or they don't. If they don't, then you should not accept the benefits unfairly stolen from those who owe you nothing; if they do, then you should accept that you are among the obligated because of your citizenship here.
--M. J. Young
You can get the boots without figuring out the whole thing, and without winning. You just have to realize what they are when you encounter them.
Let me guess, the winged demon couldn't really fly under its own power, and if I had taken his shoes, I'd have the boots. Oh well, they probably wouldn't have fit anyway. If that's not it, I don't think I ever encountered them.
So now you know how all those very rich people feel about you collecting government benefits that come out of their assets. Either the strong have an obligation to the weak and the wealthy to the poor and the healthy to the sick, or they don't. If they don't, then you should not accept the benefits unfairly stolen from those who owe you nothing; if they do, then you should accept that you are among the obligated because of your citizenship here.
I would agree with you, except in my case, it's Americans helping Americans, not Americans helping people halfway around the world. No offense intended towards Nikolaj and any other non-American visitors we have. Charity starts at home. We have enough problems here without trying to help out everyone else. What you're saying, essentially, is that we should help other countries before we help ourselves. What about the homeless people here? Take that money we were going to give to Haiti's recently homeless, and get some of our own homeless off the street. THEN worry about people halfway around the world. I'll agree with what you said the day one of your children is suffering from malnutrition whilst you feed a total stranger.
This sounds like an alignment conflict . . .
Good to see you back Scott.
MJ, I did kind of want some thoughts from you on what I said up there.
This sounds like an alignment conflict....
--M. J. Young, quoting Scott Horton to answer John Cross.
So should I move the post to the other thread so you'll answer it?
(Doing Therapy)
I think he means that you've both stated your positions more or less completely and are likely neither to convince the other nor to better understand the other's viewpoint by discussing it further.
Well, why didn't he just say that? (Laughing)
(Doing Therapy)
Well, he sort of did. He just put it a different way.