THE GOG MAILBAG
Submitted by: anonymous
Answer contributors: Highfort, MincaldenteansQ. How do you make a character, other than filling out the app. What's the thought process behind it.A. Players often create characters to fit to a specific genre/franchise, deriving their character background from the setting as established by the OP, however close or loosely tied to it. Whether players fit their characters to be able to mesh with other characters, or create one that goes against the group for an interesting dynamic, it often starts with a solid past, that lends itself for the player to establish a reason for the present, with an outlook (or goal) for the future. These components are a matter of nurture vs. nature, conflict and resolution, ethics and morality, and culture and perspective.
Components of these, and the depth to which they are explored, may vary by player choice; establishing a deep background often helps a player justify the character’s actions. However, greater detail could leave portrayal of a character overly complex or flat – because too much effort has been spent focused on the past that ingrains a personality without effectively writing it out. Players will chalk it up to: “I know how she/he/it thinks. That’s good enough.” An entire player base might disagree; their characters are as much a stranger to yours and vice versa.
Likewise a player that’s too focused on the present RP setting often leaves a character background blank, giving an empty shell with hastily fabricated biographic information for the sake of convenience that leads to a character portrayal turning out sub-par, uninteresting, or worse, confusing. The writer would need to remember what personality traits, what past bio information and what justifies their character’s present at all times to keep it consistent; it is wasted energy when the present needs to be progressive of character growth, not trying to reconcile conflicting data.
Both have the inescapable future to contend with when RPing with a group. The OP sets the setting, story, and direction. The player base responds and reacts and depending on how well a character is established, that will reflect the reaction and outcome presented. There is no perfect balance, each has its strengths and weaknesses but achieving a balance that leaves room for growth is highly recommended. Don’t make a bio so restrictive that a character is limited to certain actions based on past conflicts or personal bias; give the character room to grow (for better or for worse) in addition to giving the player a wide field to explore and write. Don’t leave a blank and empty background because time spent ‘winging it’ does little to shape the character and personality it deserves; if a player is going to commit to an RP, the least a player could do is flesh out a character worth the player’s time and effort.
All in all, these factors intertwine as character development; knowing how much to give, how much to hold back (to explore and expand), and keeping a balance of the two that lets a player’s creativity flow. Growth will always shed a character’s original purpose and persona; updating the bio to reflect it would help keep the player consistent with their character’s actions/reactions, motivation, perspective, feelings, and goal(s) for said character. It will help plan for the future, take action in the present, and reflect upon the past.
BREAKING IT DOWN:
Making a character involves three basic concepts: the past, the present, the future.THE PAST
- Where does your character come from? Who inspired him or her to do important events in the past? Who were his or her role models? Who did he or she hang out with?
- Most importantly, does he or she accept the past or regret it?
- If he or she accepts the past, you're more likely to see elements of the past show up in his or her present personality. If the character accepted a strict upbringing as necessary, for instance, then he or she will probably be more inclined to see life as a matter of rules and laws; he or she will show disdain for those who do not accept similar upbringings.
- If he or she rejects the past, you're more likely to see the past show up as a negative: the precise opposite is what the individual will strive for. Characters who felt that a string upbringing was stifling and oppressing may seek goals which affirm beliefs in freedom; those who resent the stunting of their emotional development may be inclined to let loose and explore the full panoply of what they were denied. These individuals will often show disdain or pity for those who have similar upbringings but accept rather than rejecting them.
- The other aforementioned questions are important as well. Where they are from informs their dialect and knowledge; who inspired them will often inform life goals; their role models and their friends will inform their ethical and moral choices. Use the past to shape the individual's "autopilot" behavior: their past and how they view it will determine how they behave in certain situations.
THE PRESENT
- What are your character's life goals? What is your character's current situation? Who are they interacting with? What are some up-front issues they are actively seeking to address now?
- The present is the character's "road". What's happening in it informs the decisions the character will make: whether to take a detour from their existing goals as a result of new goals or problems, whether to reconsider how to reach their goal with a new approach, or whether to continue on the path they have set for themselves. The present is the key to characters being dynamic; new situations that pop up during the roleplay or story will allow characters to reinforce their beliefs, plans, and goals or to change them.
- Use their present situation going into the roleplay and during the roleplay to determine how to develop your character or whether to develop them at all. Characters who are so busy in life that they can't contemplate their own circumstances are often going to exist on autopilot, and that's okay provided there's a reasoning and the character makes sense in this role.
- The future: Where does your character see themselves when the immediate quest or goal is completed? Does your character have anyone or any group they wish to stay attached to in the long term? What is your character's ultimate view of death and of fate?
THE FUTURE
- The future is the character's "map". Essentially, their views on the future will inform their decisions in the present. Remember, the present is only a "road": it gives characters the OPPORTUNITIES to develop, to change, and to explain their goals and beliefs. It doesn't FORCE any of these things on the characters with the exception of detours from existing goals as a result of unforeseen problems. The rest is up to them. These choices must come from the characters considering their future goals and views on the future - from their intentions for their future selves.
Ultimately, all well-written characters have habits or an autopilot, have a road they're going on, and have a map with a destination. This is how characters become interesting and engaging to the reader without resorting to extremes or cliches. Do not simply fill out the app and just put it on the shelf as part of a checklist of things you need to do to join a roleplay. Look at it regularly, update it if this helps you collect your thoughts, and consider it whenever a choice comes up that your character can make. The more clear it is that your character has a story and a life beyond what is described explicitly in the roleplay, the more likely you and your fellows will be able to empathize with, understand, and ultimately enjoy reading about this character's struggles and successes.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Submitted by: anonymous (re the current PT nation group)
Answer contributors: HighfortQ. How to you build an ancient army? What things do you look to add? What are the basic things needed? What is overkill? How realistic do people have to be?A. Ancient armies are built, quite literally, on muscle. While skirmishing was a huge part of ancient warfare - as evidenced by the Rhodian slingers and Cretan archers, both of whom proved so skilled that they were often contracted out as mercenaries by the Macedonians and Romans - it ultimately came down to slug-fests between infantry with cavalry, skirmishers, and artillery playing supporting roles. Battles were not necessarily fought to totally destroy the opponent, but rather to break his morale so that his men would flee the battlefield. Ultimately, your goal should be to
route the enemy army while taking as few casualties as possible. Any kills you do get will be kills of opportunity and you should not be sacrificing your own men unless the situation is hopeless - in which case, take as many of the enemy with you as you can. With this focus on morale in mind, you can formulate how you're going to approach your military based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of your nation's people, locales, and resources.
First, let's look at resources. Nations such as Epidikos, which lacks horses, are probably not going to be fielding particularly strong cavalry. If you're weak in a certain area - let's say you lack the metals to field strong infantry units - then consider that your nation, to survive, would have had to beef up its military in other areas. In the aforementioned example, perhaps superior ambusher units, skirmishers, and horsemen (both melee and ranged) could make up for a weaker infantry line. Historically, Rome often hired out mercenary cavalrymen to fill out its armies, with its Equites being a supporting force rather than the main killing power; instead, Rome focused on fielding strong, unparalleled heavy infantry with which to break the enemy's main line.
Also note that
having or not having certain resources doesn't mean you should neglect other portions of your military. Again, Rome was not cavalry-strong but they did not simply NOT field cavalry. They still took time to round out their military with Equites from the citizenry and with mercenary horsemen, even if these were a supporting force. Having no cavalry, infantry, or skirmishers - including mercenaries - is a serious issue you should not have in your armies unless you can justify it (lets say with terrain or with weaker neighbors).
Next, let's look at the location. Nations in mountainous areas are most likely not going to be fielding strong cavalry or strong pikemen, as both of these excel in open ground where the former can get clean charges off and the latter can set up proper staggered pike formations. Consequentially, these nations would look at fielding stronger skirmishers and non-formation infantry which would excel on uneven terrain where formations often break apart as a result of the environment.
Finally, let's look at the people. Let's face it: Romans were short. They were noticeably shorter than their Germanic and Gaulish counterparts to the north as a result of a more grain-filled rather than meat-filled diet. Being much smaller individuals, they could not hope to match their opponents in open combat, nor would they want to. Hence, Romans fought in formation to
maximize their strengths - their discipline and training - while
minimizing their weaknesses - their relative size and strength. Do the same for your people: Strong or weak? Tall or short? Better eyesight or better muscles? These factors determine whether you will excel as skirmishers - as the Rhodians and Cretans did - as melee warriors - as the Romans, Greeks, and Germanic tribes did - or as cavalry - as the Numidians did.
Look to interact with your surrounding nations when creating your military by hiring mercenaries. This is a good way to establish friendly relations with your neighbors - after all, you're probably not going to want to take their men against them, which means war is unlikely (though there are exceptions) - as well as to fill out your army's weaknesses without necessarily making your nation overpowered and perfect. Carthage thrived on mercenaries, Rome's army was supplemented by auxiliaries, and Macedon's Foot Companions were often filled to the brim with men fighting for coin.
Things to avoid, which indicate a lack of understanding of ancient military logistics and which are generally overkill:
- Too much cavalry: Unless you're the Huns or the Mongols - where horsemanship is a way of life - cavalry is too expensive and too cost-ineffective to field as your main force; you will be cut down by infantry in one-on-one combat because you are not as resilient in combat when you face them head-on and without enough infantry you won't be able to fix the enemy infantry to allow your cavalry to get off clean charges.
- Too much artillery: There's a reason even after the fall of melee combat that people didn't just bring around armies full of bombards and howitzers. Artillery is expensive, it takes time to set up, and it is vulnerable to flanking and to cavalry. If you bring more than a few dozen pieces of artillery with an army - especially one not intending to fight in an open location or in a siege - you're going to be in serious trouble when the enemy dismantles your expensive ballistae, trebuchets, and onagers. Not to mention it takes a dedicated crew to maintain the artillery separate from your fire teams; finding ammunition is also a pain in the ass and can prove deadly if you enter a location with almost no suitable rocks and you haven't brought any of your own.
- Unrealistic Army Sizes: An army marches on its stomach. Think of how much you eat in a day; now imagine eating at least 1.5 times that amount to ensure you don't starve as a result of marching in the sun and manual labor to set up and tear down camp. Imagine how much water you would drink; double that amount; triple it. Imagine how many supplies you need when you go camping; now bring that for every man. As you can imagine, this quickly spirals out of control when your armies get too large. Roman armies stretched for miles when out on the march, not including baggage trains and civilian workers. The ENTIRE Roman military, at its height, was no more than 450,000 men strong. That's at the HEIGHT of the empire, and that's the ENTIRE military. Consider that when composing your own armies: 10,000 is huge, that's an invasion force. Patrols won't number more than a few hundred; marching armies for defense will be around 3,000 to 5,000.
- Useless Armies: If you have an army, you're fighting. If you're not fighting, you don't have an army. Armies are almost never cost-effective - you will always spend more on the army to take a territory than the territory will recoup in profits for at least 5 - 10 years. So when fielding armies, remember they have to be doing something. If you're not invading, you're raiding. If you're not raiding, you're defending. If you're not defending, you're putting down some kind of rebellion. If there is no violence or no threat of violence - a valid threat being possible combat within the next year or so - then your military should be massively scaled back to just the patrols necessary to maintain order in the lands you own. Also note that, in the event you are not using mercenaries as your military core - which is the majority of you - you will lose economic strength when you draft your working men into your military. Keep that in mind when you create it: if it's not doing ANYTHING, then it should not exist.
- Relying on Gimmicky Units: Elephants do not make an army. They form part of an army - a scare force as well as a force to break formations - but they do not MAKE an army. Naked fighters do not MAKE an army. Praetorians or the equivalent elite infantry do not MAKE an army. An army is composed of multiple units designed to work in conjunction, so if your army is made up of all one unit or mostly one unit that isn't a standard infantry you can field in large numbers, your army is a gimmick. This is because the cool units people like to field - elephants, elite infantry, ambushers, etc - are specialty units that are cost-effective ONLY in certain situations and ONLY if the enemy doesn't counteract them. Basically, paying for some pikemen or spearmen and some skirmishers to kill elephants is way cheaper than paying for the elephants themselves. Remember that when looking at force composition.
The Mailbag is a bi-weekly feature available to Paedagog members. Questions can be submitted via TG to Paedagog; you can request to remain anonymous. Mailbag writers are not NS Mentors - unless they happen to actually be NS Mentors! - thus the advice given herein is based upon the experiences of the writer; each person approaches gaming and writing differently. The Mailbag is not meant as a replacement for the NS Mentor program nor the official P2TM Q&A thread: Cafe. The Mailbag is not a flotation device. Warning: has been found to cause sarcasm in laboratory mice. Remove plastic before eating.