What is a Playable Character?
First, a point of clarification; I have long taken the acronym "PC" to mean, in reference to In Character content and in the context of the same, "Player Character" as opposed to the term "NPC" which to me has always inferred a "Non-Player Character". The differences are purely semantic, I believe, but just so everyone is on the same page: PC = Playable/Player & NPC = Non-Player/Playable Character.
On to terms of definition, and thanking Omnae for putting everything in such a concise format...
What is a Playable Character?
A PC, as I have understood it, has always been a members main character development project. This is to say that, of any given member, most have one or two or perhaps three Player Characters. Which, in terms of scope and scale, means that on average each member has one PC per faction with which they are affiliated. Using myself for an example, follows as such...
Beff Pike (the Member)
= Beff Pike, Bounty Hunters Guild
= Lord Silk, The Palestar Crusade/Sith Order
= Lance Shipwright, Gestalt Colonies
The problem arises, in my case, where various other characters are involved. These examples, largely relegated to the GC, include Mat'ko Ko'Vic and Paunch. And while these characters lack a level of development, these characters do have their own accounts and/or biographical submissions.
Which brings me to...
What makes a Playable Character?
An individual screenname attached with pic?
A biography in the TRF Bio section?
Answer; Yes. But! I do not feel this is enough. Technically, as it was explained during the phase of TRFs development, a Player Character is defined by the inclusion of a separate account and a biographical summary. The idea being that a) said biography would encompass enough character development that it would provide the reader with an understanding as to the details of that characters nature and disposition and b) that posting under a segregated account would give those involved (be they posting themselves or simply a reader) a clear definition as to who exactly a given post reflected.
However, as is the nature of our community, this was quickly taken advantage of. Biographies became increasingly abridged and in some cases no accounts were provided for separate character perspectives.
Additionally the term "PC" was never adequately explained in the rules or by the Staff responsible for such explanations. Between the sometimes scandalous tendencies of members like myself and the hands-off approach of staff members... also like myself, this conspired to create an inequality that would, as many of us knew, eventually come to a head.
And at that head we find ourselves (thank you oh-so-very much Corise and Wes).
To that end I suggest an open discussion. What do you believe a Player Character to be? What do you believe defines the differences between a Non-Player Character and a Playable Character.
My opinions reflect my belief that TRF should dispense with its childish tendencies and understand that, as many of us have grown up with this community, we should be able to handle these issues with a level of maturity and understanding without reducing ourselves to the level of competition that made the Math Faction such a confusing and confounding place in the days of old. Even I have to admit, however; that measures of gameness will prevail and as such we need to have rules and guidelines to address those prevailing factors when they should arise.
A Player/Playable Character is...
... a members main character project, the perspective from which he or she tells the majority of their tales and involves themselves with the community in an In Character sense.
... a character belonging to a member which is involved with a faction, as we are after all The Rebel Faction and much of our history is tied to the development of our factions in as much as the characters. For each member one Player/Playable Character per faction should suffice. This does not restrict a member from including additional perspectives, it does however relegate these additional perspectives to Non-Player/Playable Character status.
... a character, belonging to a member, which has a certain level of development behind it. This includes a separate account and a biographical submission. Included with these two factors are numerous other less quantifiable factors. For instance; a PC will be more then a simple means to an end, it will be a character which is or will become an integral part of the In Character aspect of our community. A good way of looking at this would be to consider the Star Wars films - Han Solo would be a valid representation of a Player/Playable Character because, as a viewer, we understand the intricacies of the character. Where as Jabba The Hutt would represent a Non-Player/Playable character in so far as his role is purely supportive and though we may get a glimpse of his nature, his history, these aspects are only included to further bolster the character of Han Solo and the rest of the leading characters.
... etc?
A Non-Player Character is...
... a character perspective which is the public domain of the community.
... a character which has been created for a singular purpose, be that to further a story, or further the development of a faction. Unlike a Player/Playable Character, which can also add to the development of the faction to which he or she is attached, an NPC does not require a back-story, a separate account or a biography submission.
In effect this would create a balance between what a PC is and what an NPC is but leaves a markable level of vagueness between the two so that, should a member decide to develop and NPC to PC status, he or she can do so.
Now, using the example of Christina Thorn...
In my opinion Christina Thorn has always been a Non-Player Character for a number of reasons. She exists only to further the goals of the Confederation. Her only contributions have been to the faction to which she is attached and the Player/Playable Character in charge of said faction; Corise Lucerne.
For me the key difference between an NPC and a PC can be found here for an NPC is usually created for and used to advance the achievements of a faction. Very little is done purely for the sake of character development that does not lend itself directly to such efforts as Planetary Take-Over threads, Fleet Action threads or otherwise faction-vs-faction actions.
But here again another problem arises...
There are, I would say, characters which are regarded by their owners/creators as Player Characters because they boast Biographical Submissions and Separate Accounts, however; their entire history has lent itself to the furtherance of a faction. And I know you're going to aim guns my way for this guys, but Corise and Wes are two of the biggest offenders. They do little for the sake of story, and though these characters are considered Player Characters unto themselves, the vast majority of their contributions have furthered their factions, not their characters. Versus, say, Simon Kaine...
While Simon Kaine has done more for his faction as a character then most any other character currently active, he also boasts a plethora of Character Development threads which were written for the sole purpose of expanding the character in question. Most Jedi and Sith characters represent my understanding of what makes a Player Character better then most faction-based PC's. These are characters which exist for the members that own them to expand on the development of that very character as opposed to the aims of a faction.
So what I propose is a re-working of the terminology. I propose the following...
The creation of a new understanding of what defines a character based on its place and purpose. To which end:
Faction-Character; this is a character which exists to further the goals of the faction to which he or she is attached. While this character may feature some level of character development it is understood that the motivation for said development is only to further enable the character in question to achieve goals for his or her faction. As with Player/Playable Characters before these cannot be harmed, maimed or killed without the express consent of the owner of that characters creative property rights and these characters are not part of the public domain of TRF contributors.
Story-Character; this is a character which exists for the sake of writing stories within the TRF environment which are more aligned with fan-fiction versus role-play. These characters are the vehicles for members to write stories of various types of which the majority do not lend themselves to the furtherance of a faction. As with Player/Playable Characters before these cannot be harmed, maimed or killed without the express consent of the owner of that characters creative property rights and these characters are not part of the public domain of TRF contributors.
Now, again, the lines between the two would blur and cross under certain circumstances. Here I am going to use the example of Simon Kaine. No one would argue that Kaine represents a valid Player/Playable Character despite the fact that he continued to add his efforts to faction. So, the qualifier here at least for me would be this...
A Story-Character (PC) may be a Faction-Character (NPC) as well, but a Faction-Character (NPC) may not be a Story-Character (PC) simultaniously. This requires members to put in the work to actually create a Story-Character (PC) such as background development (the inclusion of a biography and separate account) with a level of detail sufficient that no doubt exists as to the validity of this character as a PC. This character would also be able to contribute to the development of one or more factions, but only in a lesser capacity to that characters continued development as a character first.
It reads as more confusing then it seemed in my head, but I believe the point of clarity is still present and creates a clear understanding of the differences between the two.
As to the advantages and disadvantages...
It has long been believed that a PC trumps an NPC in all cases, but this is an ancient understanding which relates to a now somewhat forgotten aspect of TRF - fleeting and forcing.
In example:
A Player Character Force-User vs a Non-Player Character Force User.
PC Forcie > NPC Forcie
A Player Character Fleeter vs a Non-Player Character Fleeter.
PC Fleeter > NPC Fleeter
Under my proposal, this would be changed to reflect the more modern approach to writing here at TRF.
On a Character to Character level, a Story-Character could be considered the greater value versus a Faction-Character. This is because; while the Factioneer has developed his character to further the ends of his faction, on a purely singular level, his or her development does not rival that of the Story-Character.
However, on a Character to Faction level, the reverse would be true. It would be the Faction-Character who could be expected to muster ships, direct policy, command troops and so on.
But! And this is important...
I believe it is time we came to regard characters of all sorts as more then a means to an end. A Story-Character represents a members devotion to the development of a single character and the stories involved with him or her. A Faction-Character would conversely represent a members efforts to develop his or her factions. Neither could be considered more valuable then the other over-all, but in specific interactions each would be better suited to their own areas (be they Character or Faction development).
Furthermore, the idea of a Non-Player/Playable Character would remain. Each character type (Faction or Story) would require supporting roles and these roles would spawn NPC's. Perhaps a wiser definition then would be Support Character. Support Characters would exist to, expectedly, support the stories of either Faction or Story based characters.
So:
Supporting-Character; these characters exist to support the events told from the perspective of Story or Faction based characters. Unlike Player/Playable Characters before these can be harmed, maimed or killed without the express consent of the owner of that characters creative property rights and these characters are part of the public domain of TRF contributors. Supporting characters will not have separate accounts, biographical summaries or extensive histories attached to either the Faction-Character or Story-Character with which they are affiliated. Supporting-Characters may become either Faction-Characters or Story-Characters with sufficient effort as described above.
Those are my thoughts.
[img]http://dragcave.net/image/yKUB.gif[/img]
