Roleplaying To Fail

[Wumpatron]

This is a thought I have been having a lot recently. When most roleplay, whether it be as an organization, a family, or even just an individual, they have this incentive to roleplay for the best outcome. They want their character well just as much as the character does, they are sharing the same aspirations. Now, my thought is taking this and flipping it on it's head. Your character wants to do well, aspiring for some great thing, but you flip this around for them by wanting the end goal for them to fail.

Now a very basic example I can provide for this would be as an antagonist. I want to begin this point by stating creating a character for the sole purpose of existing as an antagonist is a waste. This is my perspective. Perhaps a better way to view an antagonist is as an individual who serves as a foil to the overall ideology of the majority. A black sheep. I'm not going to go on with this as that could be a separate thread on it's own, but here's the thing, you have an antagonist character. Whatever their goals are, they want to succeed in them. But one thing that I notice from antagonist to antagonist is that they end up resulting in failure. They may succeed in parts of their goals but in the end they always seem to fall short and end up failing.

Now let us take you as the player behind this antagonist character. In a normal sense you want your character to succeed just as much as they do if not more so. But what if your objective was to ultimately see them fail. That would change the dynamic of how you play them. Instead of playing them to be successful and drag in on, instead you play them to construct a beautiful rise and fall. You have a definitive beginning and end for this antagonist. Instead of their existence being a constant, they have a measurable time line to draw from. Now in a general sense the typical end for an antagonist is death or at the least being placed into a position of which progressing further is not possible. That makes the character a once time deal.

This is more or less a way to create an antagonist. If you already have it set up and know that you will fail it makes everything else less important. You don't have to worry about if your character is going to live this long and beautiful life, because you have already decided that they won't. You can apply a similar principle to your main character. If you focus less on success and accepting that yes, my character is going to fail it means you won't be worried about creating this lovely world for them to exist in. Every downfall becomes positive in your eyes as a downfall becomes progress rather than regress. Your characters negative is your positive. This is the view point I am using to play my characters. This set out plan of failure is allowing me to fill in the holes with more dynamic interactions with characters. Acting as a foil to everyone else. I am filling in parts of a story under the notion that my characters will have set ends to match their beginnings. Their story is already written and it's up to me to make the story as interesting as possible.

Having your character fail creates a bookend to their story. The only difference is that this bookend doesn't have to be defined. You may accept that your character will fail but never truly know when that point is. You just go with the flow like everyone else is doing for their character to succeed, the only difference is that you get to exist in the moment without having to look forward. Forward for you is the end.

This thread is more or less my thoughts about portraying characters recently. It is more than likely jumbled and filled with multiple ideas and thoughts, but I hope somewhere in there is something useful. This is a summary of what I'm trying to make:

-Instead of having a goal to reach, have your goal be failure, meaning an actual end to your characters existence
-Once you accept failure you can fill in your entire characters experience with roleplay that means more given that you have a set time
-Be a foil character. Take a position opposite others. It will allow you to make any roleplay experience involving your character more dynamic and memorable
-Failure=Success

I suppose that wraps things up. At the very least consider the topic of the thread. Roleplaying to Fail. Feel free to write how you feel about the title in the comments. Perhaps it means something different to you then it does to me. Just something to get you thinking about roleplay differently.

 

[kudzzy]

So...we should all be hinterland ravens?

 

[Wumpatron]

So...we should all be hinterland ravens?

Click to shrink...

Not at all, you aren't doing anything bad to your character. You are playing them normally, just with this outside notion that the character will fail in their goals. You aren't the one making them fail. You're just playing them with the understanding that there is a set amount of time you will be playing them, or that there is a possibility of a set amount of time. Having a definitive end allows you as the player behind the character to fill in their existence with as much meaning as possible before they fail. Sort of an incentive if you would.

 

[Parz1vol]

So, most people put too much of themselves in their character for this, so you'll get few people on board.

And on top of that, why not just not have a goal? OOC, I could care less about my characters, even if they make for great writing and story making. I'm not gonna set them up for failure OOC though... I'll let them do that themselves eventually.

 

[Wumpatron]

So, most people put too much of themselves in their character for this, so you'll get few people on board.

And on top of that, why not just not have a goal? OOC, I could care less about my characters, even if they make for great writing and story making. I'm not gonna set them up for failure OOC though... I'll let them do that themselves eventually.

Click to shrink...

This is more or less a means to create a character without worrying about them. Sort of creating care free roleplay. If you have this notion that your character will end up failing then you don't worry about things that affect them, its more a focus on their story. Its not really roleplaying to fail, that's sort of a tag to get people hooked in. It's really just roleplaying to have an end for your character.

 

[Parz1vol]

This is more or less a means to create a character without worrying about them. Sort of creating care free roleplay. If you have this notion that your character will end up failing then you don't worry about things that affect them, its more a focus on their story. Its not really roleplaying to fail, that's sort of a tag to get people hooked in. It's really just roleplaying to have an end for your character.

Click to shrink...

So then in the end it comes down to realistic character creation and storytelling. My character Benedict succeeded. Settled down, became an author, and supports he and his three children and wife in the world of NPChood. As long as a char has realistic goals, an end is easy to find without "roleplaying to fail."

 

[Wumpatron]

So then in the end it comes down to realistic character creation and storytelling. My character Benedict succeeded. Settled down, became an author, and supports he and his three children and wife in the world of NPChood. As long as a char has realistic goals, an end is easy to find without "roleplaying to fail."

Click to shrink...

The notion of roleplaying to fail is a way to counter the notion of roleplaying to win. If you go about roleplay expecting to win then your character will come across unnatural and in most cases one dimensional. However, the notion of failure is a counter to this. This is not to say that every interaction your character has is destined to fail, it's more along the lines of the tragic hero. Everything your character does follows their goal to succeed, but in the end they will fail as that creates more depth. My hopes with this idea of roleplaying to fail is that it will force people to set realistic standards for their character. A deeper thinking to it that you don't even notice. It's how I am roleplaying from now on. It may not be clear what I am saying in this thread or in any responses, but it makes sense to myself. To me that's more important, leading by example. So essentially you are correct with your points in opposition to roleplaying to fail. Roleplaying to fail is a salesmen way of encouraging making a more realistic character. Because when you have this notion of failure it makes you notice and create character flaws as that would help you with the eventual failure. Roleplaying to fail isn't about the ending of failure, but the steps that makes you address character flaws more than positive traits. I hope that makes sense, but yes, your critique is very much correct.

 

[soapboxstage]

Got a bit of lunch money left, here is my five cents:
IRONY
You have to make your character as ironic as possible
- an expert sight mage home blind
- a scholar trapped in a vilitali
- A maiar that drowned
- A Yanar burried alive
- A tigran eaten by a tiger
- Wolung fallen out of a tree
- A drowdar lost in the dark
- A lightning mage-strict by lightning
- A slizzar died of snake venom
You can make a ton but the point is, irony
if i use a lot of irony I can get some interesting characters.

-medusa got stoned

 

[Wumpatron]

Got a bit of lunch money left, here is my five cents:
IRONY
You have to make your character as ironic as possible
- an expert sight mage home blind
- a scholar trapped in a vilitali
- A maiar that drowned
- A Yanar burried alive
- A tigran eaten by a tiger
- Wolung fallen out of a tree
- A drowdar lost in the dark
- A lightning mage-strict by lightning
- A slizzar died of snake venom
You can make a ton but the point is, irony
if i use a lot of irony I can get some interesting characters.

-medusa got stoned

Click to shrink...

While some irony does work, I like to think of situational irony rather than straight forward irony. The examples you use are comical which is fine if that's your intentions. An example of irony I would more than likely use is building a brotherhood up to overthrow the empire only to be betrayed by said brotherhood. In a beautiful twist, the one building the brotherhood built his own downfall. Sort of along the lines of masters downfall is his own creation. I love that stuff and it is very straightforward to rp with.

 

[Caedit]

If you play "the antagonist" in a story, your ultimate goal is to provide a challenge for the protagonists to overcome. This is the rule that has existed since RPing has ever existed in the form of Dungeon's & Dragons. As a dungeon master your job is to provide a fun experience for the players, and if it ends up being a conflict, you are there to give them something to overcome. Not something to constantly lose to, not something to be berate players or characters with, and not something to be pushed over easily. If your character who intends to destroy the world or summon the arch-demon or otherwise do great evil things either isn't defeated, or is defeated too easily, you have failed in making "the antagonist" any fun. There is a lot of work that needs to go into crafting the antagonist of a story, and in the end, if you aren't making them to give others a sense of accomplishment, it isn't fun either.

If you want to make a character that doesn't serve to be an obstacle to be overcome, you can still make a character who is evil or non-heroic. The idea is to make a character that is not "the antagonist", you can do this by simply being subtle, nuanced, or just less grandiose with how they act. If a character does not become the driving force of conflict in a story, they are not "the antagonist", and this means they usually don't have to die or be imprisoned to end or further the story, and can keep their villainous traits without having to eventually be put into a failure state.

A good way to view this is as playing "the antagonist" versus playing the "rival". When you're playing as the ultimate big bad, the only two options that first come to my mind are victory or death. This makes role-play much more rigid, and often less fun because someone has to die when the stakes are this high, meaning someone's character they spent hours on has to disappear forever. While that isn't strictly always bad, it's never fun to do with a character who's story isn't over. Meanwhile playing the rival to someone else, defeat or victory doesn't have to mean death, even if both sides equally want to win in character, it's easier to imagine the development possible if your character lost to their rival. They could feel resentment, remorse, perhaps even pride for the person who bested them. Because it stops being a unrealistic "hero vs villain" scenario, and transforms into a battle of wills, prides, or maybe even ideologies, all of which are multidimensional, and absolutely most importantly, transformable... Staying flexible and open to development is the key to keeping your character alive.

Making a evil, non lawful, or otherwise morally grey character is hard, because the more drastic your character becomes, or the more hated they are in universe, the higher the stakes become, and it's very easy to go from a night in jail to execution within regalia. That's why I suggest to start small, make a thief, a petty con-man, or just a guy who doesn't have the best interests for others in mind. Then go from there, perhaps they develop a desire to trick others maliciously, or become part of a small impact cult or criminal organization. Take baby steps, involve yourself as a low stakes obstacle in other character's stories so you can continue to develop and grow your small obstacle. Ultimately if your small time rogue becomes a wanted threat naturally and slowly, or your ability to role-play a less prominent villain shines through this practice, you might find yourself involved in things bigger than what you could ever have started a character in, and become "the antagonist" for many protagonists. It's happened before, and there's no telling when it will happen again. So if you really want to play that notorious villain, start small, stay realistic, be flexible, and try to prove your ability to play A villain to others before you try to be THE villain.

 

[Wumpatron]

If you play "the antagonist" in a story, your ultimate goal is to provide a challenge for the protagonists to overcome. This is the rule that has existed since RPing has ever existed in the form of Dungeon's & Dragons, as a dungeon master your job is to provide a fun experience for the players, and if it ends up being a conflict, you are there to give them something to overcome. Not to constantly lose to, not to be berated by, and not to be pushed over easily.If your character who intends to destroy the world or summon the arch-demon or otherwise do great evil things is not planned out to fail in their goal, and be defeated, you have failed in making a "the antagonist" any fun.

On the other end, you can just make a character who is evil, but is not "the antagonist", by simply being subtle, nuanced, or less grandiose with how they act or plan to act. If they are not the ultimate villain, or the driving force of conflict in a story, they are not "the antagonist", meaning they don't have to die or be imprisoned to end or further the story, and can keep their villainous traits while still being part of the overall story.

So I suggest to anyone who wants to make the ultimate antagonist, and the driving force of conflict in a story, to be prepared to have your character lose or die in a magnificent way, because that is the purpose of "the antagonist", to be overcome. If you want a evil, villainous, or immoral character that lasts longer than that, try to make one that is subtle about it, and isn't the main antagonistic force for other characters. For example, a immoral "rival" versus the evil, murderous "antagonist/villain". Having a hero be defeated by their rival without killing them offers so much more role-play potential than a heroic character being ruthlessly slaughtered/assassinated by the "antagonist". It is also much more fun to play the rival to other characters, and using the hero's victory as a way to develop the rival, rather than having defeat be the failure state for your "antagonist". A well written character that isn't solely "the antagonist" will have equal development from being defeated as they would from winning, without having to end their story prematurely, even if the results are less... Magnificent than that of "the antagonist".

Making a evil, non lawful, or otherwise morally grey character is hard, because the more drastic your character becomes, or the more hated they are in universe, the higher the stakes become, and it's very easy to go from a night in jail to execution within regalia. That's why I suggest to start small, make a thief, a petty con-man, or just a guy who doesn't have the best interests for others in mind. Then go from there, perhaps they develop a desire to trick others maliciously, or become part of a small impact cult or criminal organization. Take baby steps, involve yourself as a low stakes obstacle in other character's stories so you can continue to develop and grow your small obstacle. Ultimately if your small time rogue becomes a wanted threat naturally and slowly, or your ability to role-play a less prominent villain shines through this practice, you might find yourself involved in things bigger than what you could ever have started a character in, and become "the antagonist" for many protagonists. It's happened before, and there's no telling when it will happen again. So if you really want to play that notorious villain, start small, stay realistic, and try to prove your ability to play A villain to others before you try to be THE villain.

Click to shrink...

A fair assessment. Thank you for your comment, very good read and very relevant.

 

[Caedit]

A fair assessment. Thank you for your comment, very good read and very relevant.

Click to shrink...

I think my edits make the comment much more informative, I hope you don't mind, I figured the middle part was a bit redundant and not as clear as it should have been.

 

[Wumpatron]

I think my edits make the comment much more informative, I hope you don't mind, I figured the middle part was a bit redundant and not as clear as it should have been.

Click to shrink...

I found it quite clear in the redundancy, but it's always nice to make stuff pretty. I usually just leave my stuff alone redundancy in tact in case I delete my own point by mistake.