Goal-Based Backwards Design

[Falconer]

While I'm a new player to Armageddon, I've been around the block of the RPI community for nearly a decade.  Despite the fact that I know I'm well within the 'honeymoon phase' of entering a new MUD, I already see key features that add to the outstanding quality of the roleplaying environment: pro-active players, a world constructed to be based on internal and external conflicts, and a mature community.  For many of you, then, this may be preaching to the choir, but I hope that it is useful nonetheless.  I'll preface by offering thanks to the players and staff of Armageddon - it truly is an exceptional piece of persistent, interactive fiction.  What follows is the first in a series of articles I'm working on regarding goals, plots, and character motivations.

Goal-based Backwards Design 1: Norms for Goal-Setting
by Edward Falconer

The question, "How do I create a plot?" is one that is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding: a plot must be drafted, outlined, and implemented for it to come into being. This is not to say that it is not an admirable question--the players who ask it have strong goals in mind: they want to add to the gameworld, they'd like to spur intrigue and excitement for other players, they want to develop leadership qualities that will lead to higher karma counts and special roles so that they can be trusted with even greater influence. Those who ask this question are pro-active players - by far the most essential requirement for plot creation (and, though some would disagree with me, roleplaying.)

What I propose, in this experiment, is to turn that very question on its head - to design our plots backwards, so that they may be even more effective. While that may sound complex, the methodology is far simpler and entirely logical: the goals underscored by the question, "How do I create a plot?" are ultimately goals of the player, rather than the character. As such, plots mapped out by this traditional ideology - engrained in the architect's brain by years of AD&D and computer or videogame conceptions - will always prove far more ineffective than those based on the goals of the character.

We will begin, then, by establishing goals for our characters, and in subsequent articles in this series we will actively sail our way through the Scyllas and Charybdi of forming these goals into plots.

While there are several different types of goals that a character can possess, there are certain unities in norms that all goals share. These norms should become a rubric, or a checklist, to go over before finalizing them in your character concept.

Norms for Goals
Strong character goals...
1. are character-based, rather than player-based,
2. have a logical, geneological basis,
3. are open to influence and alteration,
4. are rooted in, and provide conflict,
5. require interaction with other players to meet them.

Let's look into each of these normative requirements and the reasons they are important for goal-based backwards design.

1. Strong character goals are character-based, rather than player-based.

The definition of a twink is a PC with goals that are player-based, rather than character-based, and nearly every twinkish infraction can be charted up as a direct cause of this misstep. Speedwalking, OOC information-sharing, macro-killing... all are proof positive that the PC is driven by the goals of the player, rather than the goals of the character. Player-based goals can range from I want to be the 733test to I want to be a great roleplayer to I want to create exceptional plots. Goals, certainly, but not ones that should be found after you've stepped into the IC realm.

The most effective method, in my experience, of getting down to the character-based goals, is use of acting guru Stanislavski's magic if. IF I were my character, what would be my goal? Using this phrase while goal-setting will ensure that your goals are logical while also ensuring that they are character-based.

That said, roleplayers who are either inexperienced or have had trouble setting character-based goals in the past, may want to consider creating a character with very similar amibitions to their own player-goals. Joe wants to be the best warrior is not necessarily a highly effective goal, since it fails to meet the other norms, but it effectively transcribes the player-based goal of I want to be a coded badass into a character-based goal.  We cannot, however, stop there.

2. Strong goals have a logical, geneological basis.

While it will reserve itself a hallowed spot in the Highlord's Tower of cliches, carpe diem has no place for the goal-based architect. All interaction is driven by goals for the future, and these very goals have a geneology that is firmly rooted in character psychology and history. By using the term geneology, I am, of course, referencing the French poststructuralist thinker Michel Foucault, who chooses the term in an attempt to evade the classical conceptions of history as a linear movement through time. This is an important distinction, as the interplay between goals and character background are far more interesting when they are cyclical, rather than linear. Take the following as an example:

Bibog the mantis killed Joe's mother, so Joe wants to be the best warrior and has a goal of killing all manti.

While logical, this goal appears to be an elementary creation, due to the linear nature of its development. The direct, logical result of the mantis killing Joe's mother is not a hatred of manti. Rather, it is the absence of the mother. Thus, let us think of Joe's past geneologically, and restate the goal in a cyclic fashion.

Bibog the mantis killed Joe's mother. Joe's loss of his mother at an early age forced him to work alongside his father mining 'sid in the wastes, rather than stay at home and practice the trade of jewelry-making. Unable to enter into an apprenticeship, the image of his father became one associated with iron-fisted rule, and the absence of free will. Angry and embittered, with the passing of Joe's father's death, Joe has a goal of becoming a jeweler and restarting his past love of trade, but he is blinded by the sense that he has wasted time, channeled to a hatred of both men in positions of authority and manti. As such, he has a goal to kill all manti until the head of Bilbog is sitting atop a mantle adorned with jewels that he has fashioned.

What is added from working with the cyclical perspective? A dozen character traits, a vicious internal conflict (if given the choice between an apprenticeship under a Kadian jeweler, or a mercenary position with the Byn guaranteed to thrust him into combat with manti, what would he choose?), and engrained biases toward other characters that already inhabit the world. To work from a geneological perspective is to, in the words of Pompadourslim from the RPI Shadows of Isildur, add the third dimension to the character. The historical model appears to be logical, as it follows a syllogism of cause and effect. Yet, oftentimes, the progression is highly illogical, for it fails to consider the psychological and developmental intricacies that we, as players, take for granted. By working through a geneological, cyclical perspective in our goal-setting, we can escape this.

3. Strong character goals are open to influence and alteration.

As we will see in subsequent articles, all goals fall on a ranked continuum of importance: minor wants, major wants, needs, passions, and obsessions. Their placement on this continuum, alongside the willpower of any given character, will effect how open they are to influence or alteration. Even when the most obsessive of goals are entrenched in the most headstrong characters, however, the player must leave open the option for these goals to be influenced or altered through in-game events, developments and interaction.

Let's return to Joe, assuming his bitterness for the loss of his mother and choice of trade has blinded his desire to return to the jewelry-crafting he once loved. Entering into a military unit, he finds that only a week past, a mantis named Bilbog was captured and executed by the same unit. While this example will be addressed in a subsequent article (Resolution of a Life-Goal), Joe is left with a choice: does he continue to seek venegance on all manti, or is the initial goal considered resolved? The player should not be expected to think through all possible scenarios in planning the goal, but should be aware that there will be activities that have the potential of resolving, disrupting, or altering that goal to a great extent.

4. Strong character goals are rooted in, and provide, conflict.

If you've done your geneological homework, every goal will be rooted in some conflict (be it internal or external) by the very nature of its cyclic design. The question then becomes: does the goal provide conflict? Should Joe pursue his manti-hunting, the answer is fairly evident: violent action is often chosen as the means to a goal simply because it is an easy means of providing the conflict that you and other players lust after. This type of conflict, however, will quickly grow tiresome for you and the players around you due to its black and white nature. We must return to our geneological design to add depth. By concentrating on the specific details of the character developed through this goal-setting process, we can begin to add the possibility /within/ the goal for conflict. Joe wants to kill all manti until he has the head of Bilbog, but he will not serve under the command of a male character. Through combining details of the geneological design, the goal is influenced by a set of requirements.

To provide conflict for a goal, then, the player must determine what the character is willing to do for the goal, what the character is unwilling to do for the goal, and what the character is reluctant to do for the goal. This should stand in direct relation to the continuum of the goal's rank. Minor wants will often succumb to conflicts. Obsessions will do so only rarely.

5. Strong character goals require interaction from other players to meet them.

If you've done the above work, norm five is hardly worth mentioning - it will already be a part of your goal. That said, it is an important final consideration to make, as it will be the ultimate test of the goal's strength before implementation. In this light, we will realize that the goal we have developed for Joe, while not weak, is rather mediocre - Bilbog is, for all intents and purposes, a fiction. The character does not exist in the gameworld and the goal would require staff, rather than player, action to have the goal met. What makes the goal stronger than it would be otherwise, is the fact that so many different players - from jewelers, to men in positions of authority, to the military unit, to manti - will be effected by the goal. In the majority of roleplaying environments I have played at, it is goals such as these that the staff are more than happy to oblige.

What happens, however, if we leave the mantis nameless, giving him only a few distinguishing features that could be shared by any number of manti? In so doing, we alleviate the need for staff involvement - Bilbog never needs to be killed for Joe to resolve the goal. He may spend the remainder of his existence in search of a way to locate the precise mantis, or he may find two of the creatures, with identical markings, before realizing the bitterness and foolhardiness of his vendetta. In either case, a number of players across organizations, clans, and walks of life have the opportunity to be effected by Joe's goal directly and by counter-goals that spring up in relation to it. Without this, setting goals is an exercise in futility, and this becomes the very danger of backwards design - while we are working backwards from the goal of the character, we must still keep in mind the goal of the player: to spur intrigue and benefit the gameworld.

In other words, we must continually ask the question: "How do I create a plot?"
[/b]

[WarriorPoet]

I remember Falconer from TCP. It's going to be a blessing to have him around as a player, guys. Trust me. He's always got something to say that's well worth listening to and as you can see from the above, he apparantly knows the ins and outs of great roleplaying.

Glad to see you around, Ed. Already stimulating us with long-winded, detailed posts? Joy. I wish I had more to post in reply to such a nice post, but although I agree with most of what you said, I'm more of a 'Just DO it' kind of plot-starter...

-WP is stoked.

[Bluefae]

Strong article, Falconer!  It's rare that such a complex topic gets tackled with a methodical-yet-enthusiastic eye.  

A few specific comments:

-Your first point is essential, and in my opinion, the well-spring from which all the rest are derived.  If one can "inhabit" the string of text that represents one's character, all manner of powerful, intense, and (best of all) *spontaneous* roleplaying is possible.  The power of Armageddon for me, vice simply writing solo, is that the character's little world can all change in a single moment.  When I literally gasp at the computer screen while playing, in shock, I know I'm "in the zone".

-At first I thought the usage of Foucault might be a bit abstruse, but, after considering the point, "geneology" is a concise, accurate way to describe the concept you convey (I'm more of a Jungian girl myself, but a post-structuralist voice is certainly an appropos perspective.).  In any event, having a wholistic view of the character as a constantly-changing organism that carries its history with it in its actions as well as its thoughts and feelings is a good way to represent this.

-Some of this article reads like a (well-done) primer on writing conflict into prose - but, what use is goal development without said conflict?  The two go hand-in-hand, and I think you do a solid job of showing how that can happen.

-A friend I just turned onto Arm this last week was thrilled when she discovered that Spice was hard-coded.  Moreover, she was downright impressed by the variety of effects, as well as the descriptions that accompanied them.  This underscored for me one of the true beauties of this gameworld - at some point, the background hit a kind of verisimilitude "critical mass", and went from setting to active participant in the story.  More than that, really:  Armageddon has managed that most difficult of fictional universe feats, and created a rich MYTHOLOGY, complete with sub-cultures, rituals, unique mores and taboos, and virtually everything a person could want in terms of raw material to fuel character development.  This doesn't mean we as a community should rest on our laurels, but rather take advantage of the massive amount of intellectual (and perhaps, at times, physical) blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into replacing Smurf villages with the subtleties of a Tuluki caste system, or steel katanas with the visceral savagery that is Allanak.

-After searching for a good seven years for a MUD I could delve into... I'M HOME!

[Ritley]

3. Strong character goals are open to influence and alteration.

As we will see in subsequent articles, all goals fall on a ranked continuum of importance: minor wants, major wants, needs, passions, and obsessions. Their placement on this continuum, alongside the willpower of any given character, will effect how open they are to influence or alteration. Even when the most obsessive of goals are entrenched in the most headstrong characters, however, the player must leave open the option for these goals to be influenced or altered through in-game events, developments and interaction.


[/b]

I disagree with this. It's not so much the character's goals, that are influenced, but the character himself. Because, as the character changes, as do his goals. Yes, Goals can be influenced directly as well, but it's usually because the character changes, his goals change, but they can do it if focused towards it, but to do so, would also change the character of a person slightly as well.  Because, both the person, and his goals interconnect.

God my head hurts.

Anyways, as a response to your whole post, and not just one paragraph, I think your wrong. Not that your answers were wrong, it's just you should never look too deep into thing's like this, to do so can be, not only boring, but can make it harder to RP your character, and makes you more prone to mistakes, because your trying to focus on so many areas. Not only that, but looking too deep into all of them, and when your playing you don't have time to think so deeply. I hope I'm making sense here. Heh.

What I do is, not think so deeply about everything with my character. Just enjoy him, and do my best to be him without putting hours of looking into every aspect, althought you gotta put some time in. I find, when I do this, I can almost become one with my character, and then I don't need to think about it. I just do it. Because I'm enjoying myself. Thinking too deep about it, can be boring, and makes you more prone to mistakes. Don't think, do. Is my motto.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Wow. Awesome peice of work, Falconer. Welcome, and it seems like it will be fun to play with you.

I would suggest that you accumulate these articles you plan on writing together and offer the staff the chance to integrate them into the website. I feel like you've got an excellent hold on the roleplay here in Zalanthas.

[ibusoe]

This article was awesome.

[Falconer]

Thinking too deep about it, can be boring, and makes you more prone to mistakes. Don't think, do. Is my motto.

There's a great anecdote told by Dustin Hoffman describing his preperation for his role in Schlesinger's 1976 film Marathon Man.  Hoffman, playing Babe Levy - a young man being pursued by a secretive and totalitarian organization - spent an entire weekend without eating or sleeping, chain smoking cigarettes, and driving himself crazy to prepare for the filming of a particular sequence on the following Monday.  The first person he saw, upon his arrival at the set, was his co-star, actor Lawrence Olivier.  Olivier took a long look at Hoffman and snorted, saying, "That's why they call it acting, my dear boy."

The norms that I've set aren't going to work for everyone - in fact, they may stand as antithesis to the conceptions some players have of roleplaying.  I've utilized this system with nearly every character I've had in the past two years, however, and have had marvellous results.  Those I've shared the system with, who have likewise utilized it, agree.  This should make a great deal more sense when I have subsequent articles posted.  As with anything, take what works for you and ignore the rest.  There isn't such a thing as right or wrong with this; it's just one particular pedagogy that you might find helpful.

Not only that, but looking too deep into all of them, and when your playing you don't have time to think so deeply.

Precisely why this work can be condensced into a single paragraph or two - shorter than most PC's background - that will connect you with a character while still keeping it manageable once you're IC and things happen on-the-fly.

It's not so much the character's goals, that are influenced, but the character himself.

This is exactly what I'm saying.  The character, to one extent or another, is his or her goals.  If designed geneologically, the goals of a character are woven into that character's psychology; there's no difference with this approach.

[HunterKiller]

Falconer - I'm a big believer in projecting.  I'd like to offer you the possibility that you wrote this for yourself.  Instead of writing more documentation for Arm (of which it has plenty of) I'd like you to finish writing those articles and implement them yourself.

Used to when I had a thought it would go on the board.  Nowadays, when I write a post, I respond as quickly as I used to, then re-read it and think about it, then close it without posting.  Ultimately, I think writing is a simple way of communicating with yourself on a much deeper and more profound level.   I'd rather folks not dilute themselves by posting instructions for others to follow - we have enough of that.

Hopefully you don't take offense to this because it's not a slam.  I'm posting this to you because I believe you have a shot at significantly changing the game for the better, and not by adding documentation.  Lead by example.

- HK

[James de Monet]

Falconer, you've got a lot of good information here and I think it could be useful to most if not all players.  You're clearly intelligent, and I'd guess you have a background with some formal theatrical training and either a penchant or aspirations for writing.  Awesome.  Stick with it, I see a bright future for you.  That being said, man to man, I have to tell you that the tone of your piece turns me off.  It's instructive, but in a preachy way, and all the name dropping comes across as pompous.  If your information's good, which it is, let it be strong on its own, especially in an informal setting like this.  You won't make it any stronger by bringing Nietzsche into it.  Plus, I having a feeling that if Nietzsche did come into it, he'd want to study it before making any judgements about it.  I don't know if you created your character at the same time you joined the GDB, but if I was you, and I'd only joined the game five days ago, I'd be listening, and not telling.  And, for the sake of tact, I would really probably leave the serial article writing to a later date.  It's just my two 'sid.  Good luck, man.  And I hope I run into you in game because I bet you'd be awesome to RP with.

~JDM

[Falconer]

This article has been cross-posted elsewhere (albeit with different thematic references substituted) on the Internet, which may account for the tone and the language contained within.  The goal is not to dictate any particular style of roleplaying as the sole proper one to players of Armageddon, but rather the presentation of an option that can be utilized for goal design and character motivation.  If you disagree with the points therein, or have solidified your own style, that's excellent - my hat is off to you.  Still, there are other players who might glean an idea or two from the above strategy, whether they read it here or elseMU*.  From the PMs I've received, it certainly seems to have already assisted some Armageddon players.  Take it as you will, or ignore it entirely - it's meant as a resource for anyone who is interested.

Cheers!

[Moofassa]

Don't think, do. Is my motto.

I couldn't have guessed.

That's a good peice of work.

[Tamarin]

Ritley, love...

My hea hurts too.

Nice post, Falconer.

[Morfeus]

I tried to read the post twice. No, three times in total, I gave up first time I tried because od Stanislavski. But anyway, I still don't like it, not only because the style of speech turned me away multiple times. Do all strong goals have logical basis? Not necessary. Are all strong goals open to alternations? Not necessary. Do all strong goals need interactions from other players? Not necessary. Perhaps I am just disgreeding annoying bastard, but hey, once you get to the point you feel, think and act as your character without thinking how would he feel, think and act without you leading him, you have much more fun.

IMHO.

And I really wonder how Joe found the mantis name!

[X-D]

Only problem I really see with the post is that Falconer did not make a statement I think is needed.

This post is for players of HUMAN pc's.

The idea that a dwarf would have a focus that was "easily" subject to change from outside forces I have a problem with.

And how exactly do you play a HG with any type of clear strong goals?

For the most part, Half-elves, muls, have goals that stem for racial reasons.

The goals of a dwarf need not come from any sort of conflict, and in fact I'd say that most do not in any way...none of mine ever have. Nor is there any real need to involve others.

Strong goals of half-elves and muls would most likley be emotional not logical.

Now, as to how to create a plot...the funny part is, If you have a PC that lives for any reasonable amount of time and has a personality of any sort, Unplanned plots WILL happen. These are one of the most fun types IMO.

Again, -IF- Falconer's post is aimed at the norm as in humans, then its pretty much fine as is.

[Falconer]

Certainly, X-D.  And while I think that there's a fair amount to glean for dwarves, muls and half-elves within the system, racial considerations always need to be taken into account.

[jhunter]

No offense, I just couldn't bring myself to go through reading it.

The first paragraph immediately gave me a Sjanimal (someone who wrote posts like this in a very similar fashion and tone) flashback and I couldn't go through with it.
It isn't your fault, someone came along before you while they were new to the game and began doing the same thing. They also were very disrespectful to those who have been playing the game much longer and most of whom have a varying background in roleplaying.

I just can't bring myself to read through a "series of articles" about roleplaying by someone who doesn't have much experience in -this- setting and has posted it here on the GDB.
I want to emphasize that I don't intend any offense to you personally. I suppose it's my own problem, but I've been completely turned off by this sort of thing as have a few others. Input or bringing up a discussion is one thing, but posting a series of articles that "may be preaching to the choir" I personally find rather annoying and insulting, whether or not that was your intent.
Just thought that I might let you know this so that perhaps you might take into consideration that some people might not take too kindly to this sort of thing.

Peace.

[Xygax]

Interestingly, I first skipped over this post and dismissed it as readily as others have dismissed it in their posts.  In my head, something like "Jesus, that's an uppity n00b" floated through the ether, and then something like, "Holy hell that's a long-ass post," and then maybe something like, "Hmmm, wonder if there's any good pr0n-bot URLs in the Moderation forum."

I came back to it today to read over some of the reply posts, hoping that you all would tell me whether it was worth reading or not.  Now, here's the interesting part:  what convinced me wasn't the people saying "this is good stuff", but in fact the people who pronounced it nonsense or critiqued it harshly or dismissively.

I love controversy, so this time I had to read it.

Some feedback.  The language is very stilted, and I am easily turned off by new players who post with this much authority.  No doubt, many other readers experienced similar difficulties.  Our players pride themselves on being thorough, experienced roleplayers, and in many ways Armageddon is still one of the very few MUDs in existence where rigorous RP of any kind if actually observed.

That said, we certainly have a lot to learn, and there is some new content here, or at least content I haven't seen presented in quite this way before.  I look forward to your future articles, and I hope they get read.

To the content itself, I have some questions.  You seem to assert that "cyclical goals" are universally better than linear ones.  Perhaps I missed it in the text, I haven't given it a dedicated second read yet, and it is pretty dense material, but I don't see any argumentative support for this remark.  WHY are cyclical goals better?

Also, I think that the question you struggle to answer, "How can I create a plot?" suffers from an ironic tendency to be an OOC one, just as the OOC goals you mention elsewhere in your article are.  To some extent, the roleplayer's duty isn't to create a plot, but instead to create a character.  If plots emerge from their character's activities, then so much the better.  You do provide, in your article, some suggestions for ways to craft characters whose goals are more likely to yield plot-generating behavior, but I still think it is also worth spending some time discussing this apparent contradiction (OOC desire to create plot vs. requirement to build and pursue IC goals).

All in all, a very solid read, though, and I do hope you'll find some readers.

-- X

[marko]

lol

I did exactly what Xygax did.

I've finally read the original post and the language was not conducive for me to learn anything.

Roleplaying is really a personal thing.  Coming off as preachy only manages to alienate those who may have a different point of view.  Naturally, the converted will remain converted.

I dunno, I think if the style was different I might figure out exactly what is trying to be said... but, it's too much for this hour and too much for a game.  

Someone toss out an executive summary for me?

[wizturbo]

I like to see people passionate about roleplaying, but quite honestly, I've yet to read anything about the subject that has stimulated me.  

I've had endless philosophical debates about roleplay, I was quite active on these forums in my first couple of years playing Arm.  But as time went on I've come to believe that trying to explain what good roleplaying is, is a waste of time.

I think excellent roleplay is one of those magical things, that is so human it cannot be discussed in a meaningful way, it can only be experienced.  So my answer to "What is good roleplay?" is the same as the one the Supreme Court gave when asked "What is pornography";  I know it when I see it.


So I'm not going to comment on the essay, except say, maybe it's not something you should focus so much energy on.  If you want to teach people how to roleplay....just roleplay.  They'll learn by example.  Good roleplay just seems to 'soak' into people.  

Other than that, welcome to Armageddon.  :-)

[LauraMars]

Executive Summary for the Marko

:!: Don't be yourself, be your character, you fool.  Smoke pot for total immersion.  Jk I added that part.

:!: You newbs have boring backgrounds.  Complex ftw.

:!: Shit happens.  This is ok.  

:!: Now that shit is everywhere, how you gonna roll?

:!: Solo rp is boring.

[Ritley]

Falconer, point is, your new. I mean, hell, I'm still new. I've played for over a year, and I have not even scratched the surface of the content of the world. You cannot work everything out from just looking at the doc's Falconer, there is so many undocumented thing's that you, as a player, have to work out yourself.  Yes, while a character will have want's, desires...goals.... e.t.c, e.t.c, first they need to focus on staying alive. Because, that's what Zalanthas is about. Everyone has to struggle to survive. So much so, they forget a lot of their wants. Apart from Dwarves. While your post would have probably been good for SOI, it's not here. Although your obviously intelligent, your still a newb to the game. Play a bit. Work out thing's yourself.


Oh, and get rid of that superior attitude. I mean, god. And as Xygaxsaid, your job is not to evaluate other people's RP, but instead craft your own.


Oh yeah and welcome to crackageddon    just play, do your job, instead of telling us how to do ours.

[marko]

Executive Summary

I wish there was a heart emoticon.

Oh, well, I'll go with:  Laura, I <3 U!

Thanks.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.  'course, I've made chars with extremely generic and plain backgrounds to allow the character to develop as they would in the game... I wonder if that was wrong of me.  

[Bestatte]

Nice to see you round these parts Edward!

To those who say he comes off as arrogant or whatever - heh. Yeah, but consider the source. Edward was one of the lead people in the Cathyle Project, EthereaRPG, and has written several articles about roleplaying in the MUD community, including newsletters for Shadows of Isildur. It's not that he's arrogant, it's more that he's well-written and an experienced developer/player/administrator. For another of his articles, check out the SpyGlass on topmudsites (it's an old article dating back to 2002).

Not as "well-known" as Wes Platt, Edward still has a lot to offer Armageddon and if you read his article -as- an article, and not "merely" a first post on a BB, you might enjoy it more.

[Morfeus]

It's not that he's arrogant, it's more that he's well-written and an experienced developer/player/administrator.

One can be experienced player/developer and still not be able to write non-arrogant post. Hey, some of my university teachers were unable to write non-arrogant articles and I dare to say they had lot to say. Sadly, their articles were pain to read. The problem is that writting the article in Big and Arrogant tone which gives No Place for Discussion hurts the message the writter is trying to give. In other words, every journalist learns in first semester that if you want to make a paper-work which looks big and says nothing, is it best to use Big words and sound as 'there is no discussion needed, I am right!', best if using some Big names as a support (oh, how this reminds me one of Eco's books...). People are often going to run over the Big words and names and miss what the article has to say. And people often like to forget that simplicity is better if you actually HAVE something to say. And often, when the article has something new to say, there are things which could be disagreed with or discussed.

The mentioned article above misses reasons for lot of statements. But Big words it uses makes it look like reasoning for such statements is not necessary. It gives lot of interesting ideas, especially for a very new players, but none of this statements should be taken as "a rule how to play your character", no matter it is trying to sound as such rule.

I have to ask: Is there not another way how to create your plots? What about unplanned plots? Are you really asking yourself "How do I create the plot, right now I need one?". Why are linear goals weaker than cyclical? Are my goals going to be weaker because I play in "dead times" and in less populated zone of the game, meaning I don't meet other players often, if at all? Is my extremly stubborn character who is not open to any change any worse than character who changes his goals every other week? Why? Is my hysterical noble any worse than templar who creates plots with icy logic? Why? What about plots created IG by "bad leaders", do these have to be cyclical, logical etc.?

Btw. I love LauraMars's summary. Seriously!

[Bestatte]

Falconer's article is one possible approach to character and plot development. He says so himself. There are many possible approaches to this, his is one of them. Of course it doesn't fit every variable, every character, every plot. It is a *general* overview of one possible approach. I don't see what the problem is.