Comments on: We All Have Our Roles To Play: A Functional Perspective on Personality Archetypes, Part 1 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/ Expert tips and how-to's on every aspect of creating and running exceptional campaigns. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:31:47 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mike http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3519 Mike Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:08:20 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3519 @Stupid Ranger: Glad you enjoyed the article; hopefully the rest of it will live up to this standard! I feel that I should point out that this isn't just about the players, however; don't overlook the character perspective. PCs are a gestalt of both character and player; the player provides the inner workings, as it were, and the character personality acts as a coloured filter over the top, reducing some elements of those inner workings to a nuance or tonal value while accentuating others. That's what makes one character different from another, dictating what they will do, how they will do it, and what the thought process is that leads to those actions and decisions. A good GM should target both player and character capabilities, but that is hard to do without some sort of "unified character theory" classifying the gestalts; the aim of this series is to provide that perspective. @Stupid Ranger: Glad you enjoyed the article; hopefully the rest of it will live up to this standard! I feel that I should point out that this isn’t just about the players, however; don’t overlook the character perspective. PCs are a gestalt of both character and player; the player provides the inner workings, as it were, and the character personality acts as a coloured filter over the top, reducing some elements of those inner workings to a nuance or tonal value while accentuating others. That’s what makes one character different from another, dictating what they will do, how they will do it, and what the thought process is that leads to those actions and decisions. A good GM should target both player and character capabilities, but that is hard to do without some sort of “unified character theory” classifying the gestalts; the aim of this series is to provide that perspective.

]]> By: Mike http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3518 Mike Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:58:28 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3518 Thanks, ppinkosh. I've noted your suggestion and incorporated it into a future part of the series; thanks for the contribution! Thanks, ppinkosh. I’ve noted your suggestion and incorporated it into a future part of the series; thanks for the contribution!

]]> By: ppinkosh http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3517 ppinkosh Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:41:28 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3517 Excellent article. [suggestion edited] I love this kind of article and look forward to the upcoming parts of the series. I will use these ideas. Excellent article. [suggestion edited]
I love this kind of article and look forward to the upcoming parts of the series. I will use these ideas.

]]> By: Stupid Ranger http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3495 Stupid Ranger Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:36:58 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3495 RPGs are as much about the players as the characters. This is a great look at the players, and I think you're right on with these so far. I can't wait to see the rest! RPGs are as much about the players as the characters. This is a great look at the players, and I think you’re right on with these so far. I can’t wait to see the rest!

]]> By: Mike http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3493 Mike Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:40:46 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3493 It's not always easy finding examples, Noumenon, and in many cases it's not all that necessary. It was important to do so for The Heart of The Team to ensure that I got the concept across, and because that was the archetype that I chose to use as the first example. But I actually cut the examples (Captain America of the Avengers, Cyclops of the X-Men) from the writeup of the Tactician, as they felt redundant. I thought about referring to Daniel Jackson in <em>Stargate</em> as the moral guardian in that team - it was that character's role within SG-1 and his relationship with the other characters that inspired that archetype's inclusion, and in fact, the entire concept - but again, it didn't seem to be necessary. For the Rock, the example that always comes to mind first is Sue Storm of the Fantastic Four. She was the glue that held that team and extended family together, as was pointed out many years ago in one of the early issues of the first series of "What If..." - I think it was <em>What If the Fantastic Four had Different Powers.</em> The premise of the story was that the powers each character had was a metaphor for their personalities, and that's something that I've taken away from it for use in superhero games. That was the example that I was most uncertain about cutting, but ultimately the deadline for publication found me still vaccilating, and the explanation seemed strained because very often, the Heart Of The Team and The Rock are embodied within the same character (muddying the waters considerably) - so I chose to cut it rather than undoing the clarity of the example in the first archetype. Rest assured that when I think it necessary, or even helpful, I'll be dropping more examples into the archetype writeups. As for wanting to play a character who is The Heart of The Team, look back on your past characters and campaigns and you should find someone playing that role (maybe even yourself) without even realising it. Once the archetype is known to both GM and players, the GM can start deliberately taking that into account in his planning and the player can consciously steer his character toward that team role, strengthening the game for everyone involved. This is a planning tool for GMs - but it can be used for inspiration by Players, as well. A win-win for both sides of the GM Screen! It’s not always easy finding examples, Noumenon, and in many cases it’s not all that necessary. It was important to do so for The Heart of The Team to ensure that I got the concept across, and because that was the archetype that I chose to use as the first example. But I actually cut the examples (Captain America of the Avengers, Cyclops of the X-Men) from the writeup of the Tactician, as they felt redundant. I thought about referring to Daniel Jackson in Stargate as the moral guardian in that team – it was that character’s role within SG-1 and his relationship with the other characters that inspired that archetype’s inclusion, and in fact, the entire concept – but again, it didn’t seem to be necessary. For the Rock, the example that always comes to mind first is Sue Storm of the Fantastic Four. She was the glue that held that team and extended family together, as was pointed out many years ago in one of the early issues of the first series of “What If…” – I think it was What If the Fantastic Four had Different Powers. The premise of the story was that the powers each character had was a metaphor for their personalities, and that’s something that I’ve taken away from it for use in superhero games. That was the example that I was most uncertain about cutting, but ultimately the deadline for publication found me still vaccilating, and the explanation seemed strained because very often, the Heart Of The Team and The Rock are embodied within the same character (muddying the waters considerably) – so I chose to cut it rather than undoing the clarity of the example in the first archetype. Rest assured that when I think it necessary, or even helpful, I’ll be dropping more examples into the archetype writeups.

As for wanting to play a character who is The Heart of The Team, look back on your past characters and campaigns and you should find someone playing that role (maybe even yourself) without even realising it. Once the archetype is known to both GM and players, the GM can start deliberately taking that into account in his planning and the player can consciously steer his character toward that team role, strengthening the game for everyone involved. This is a planning tool for GMs – but it can be used for inspiration by Players, as well. A win-win for both sides of the GM Screen!

]]> By: Noumenon http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3491 Noumenon Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:42:19 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3491 My favorite part of this article was where you named Professor X as The Heart of the Team. It makes the concept make sense and makes me want to try playing a character like that. If you can find an example for each one (a lot of thinking), it would help. My favorite part of this article was where you named Professor X as The Heart of the Team. It makes the concept make sense and makes me want to try playing a character like that. If you can find an example for each one (a lot of thinking), it would help.

]]> By: Mike http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3490 Mike Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:27:00 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3490 Thanks, Eric. Much of the list you offer relates to style or motivation, which is not quite on point, but there are some natural overlaps, which is interesting - it means that the archtypes offered by World Of Darkness are not a completely independant criteria that you can use to generate subtypes and variations on the team relations element that is the criteria used to develop my list of archetypes. Be certain that I will be reviewing my list in light of the archetypes you describe, and there may well be a couple of additions to come from it; there may also be some extra meat in one or two of the archetypes I have already listed, as a result of your comment shaping my thinking. Thanks for the contribution! Thanks, Eric. Much of the list you offer relates to style or motivation, which is not quite on point, but there are some natural overlaps, which is interesting – it means that the archtypes offered by World Of Darkness are not a completely independant criteria that you can use to generate subtypes and variations on the team relations element that is the criteria used to develop my list of archetypes. Be certain that I will be reviewing my list in light of the archetypes you describe, and there may well be a couple of additions to come from it; there may also be some extra meat in one or two of the archetypes I have already listed, as a result of your comment shaping my thinking. Thanks for the contribution!

]]> By: EricG http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3489 EricG Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:01:15 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3489 Second time I make a reference to the old World of Darkness from White Wolf but these archetypes tie to the whole concept of Hunter : the reckoning, and I think you are spot on with this article again Mike. The archetypes proposed by Hunter were the following : Martyrs: Those who sacrifice their all for their cause. Redeemers: Those who wish to bring the monsters back into the light. Innocents: Those who refuse to prejudge the supernatural. Avengers: Those who seek revenge for the harm done by creatures of the night. Judges: Those who mete out punishment based on how monstrous the creatures have acted. Defenders: Those who protect the victims. Visionaries: Those who seek to understand the greater meaning behind the imbuing and the existence of the supernatural. Waywards: Lost Creed. "Failed" Imbued who have gone violently psychotic. They should have been the strategists and tacticians of the Imbued. Because of their violent psychosis, they often see only the need to destroy the enemy, and are known to cause large amounts of collateral damage in the completion of their mission. Hermits: Lost Creed. "Failed" Imbued who receive psychic static near other Hunters and supernaturals. They should have been the intelligence gatherers for the Imbued, receiving information directly from the Messengers. Excellent article Mr Mike ! Second time I make a reference to the old World of Darkness from White Wolf but these archetypes tie to the whole concept of Hunter : the reckoning, and I think you are spot on with this article again Mike.

The archetypes proposed by Hunter were the following :

Martyrs: Those who sacrifice their all for their cause.
Redeemers: Those who wish to bring the monsters back into the light.
Innocents: Those who refuse to prejudge the supernatural.
Avengers: Those who seek revenge for the harm done by creatures of the night.
Judges: Those who mete out punishment based on how monstrous the creatures have acted.
Defenders: Those who protect the victims.
Visionaries: Those who seek to understand the greater meaning behind the imbuing and the existence of the supernatural.
Waywards: Lost Creed. “Failed” Imbued who have gone violently psychotic. They should have been the strategists and tacticians of the Imbued. Because of their violent psychosis, they often see only the need to destroy the enemy, and are known to cause large amounts of collateral damage in the completion of their mission.
Hermits: Lost Creed. “Failed” Imbued who receive psychic static near other Hunters and supernaturals. They should have been the intelligence gatherers for the Imbued, receiving information directly from the Messengers.

Excellent article Mr Mike !

]]> By: Tweets that mention We All Have Our Roles To Play: A Functional Perspective on Personality Archetypes, Part 1 | Campaign Mastery -- Topsy.com http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3480 Tweets that mention We All Have Our Roles To Play: A Functional Perspective on Personality Archetypes, Part 1 | Campaign Mastery -- Topsy.com Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:11:54 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3480 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JohnnFour, RPG Bloggers Network. RPG Bloggers Network said: We All Have Our Roles To Play: A Functional Perspective on Personality Archetypes, Part… http://goo.gl/fb/jIXhx #RPG [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JohnnFour, RPG Bloggers Network. RPG Bloggers Network said: We All Have Our Roles To Play: A Functional Perspective on Personality Archetypes, Part… http://goo.gl/fb/jIXhx #RPG [...]

]]> By: Mike http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/we-all-have-our-roles-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3479 Mike Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:29:17 +0000 http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/?p=2002#comment-3479 Thanks, John. Wow, but you must have read it quickly - I've only just posted it! The next part should be along in a few weeks. Thanks, John. Wow, but you must have read it quickly – I’ve only just posted it! The next part should be along in a few weeks.

]]>