Doyce points to an RPG article about what people’s “thing” is in how they play their characters, or what RPG characters they create.
His pegging of me:
Dave tends to gravitate toward support-role characters, generally. Bards. Medics. Fawning, enthusiastic, cat-girl rogues.
Well, I wouldn’t call Shishiko fawning, but … here’s what I commented back (fleshed out for this post):
Yeah. Art imitates life. Being a “support-role” character is definitely one of my “things.”
I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be.
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use …
(When I was in Freshman English, we studied “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot. I utter despised it, and now find a lot of resonance in it. Go fig.)
I think, in part, that as a character, I tend to play off other characters (PC or NPC) than directly confront the problem / situation / opponent. Not, generally, the leader, my characters tend to be supportive to the goal, as laid out by the GM — which is why I tend not to do as well with highly player-controllable game systems/settings; giving me too many options just makes me flounder, at least to some degree.
Another, integrated “thing” tends to be playing the alienated loner (cough) who is seeking meaning, identity, and acceptance (cough cough).
I think the third “thing” is that I tend to be a good guy. I can play a not-nice guy (and, regardless, can do things that I would not do in real life), but for every Osato, I’m much more likely to be a Dag. Shishiko, for all her being a chaosbringer and assasin/thief, was sweet (and probably the most fun character I’ve played in a decade). Even Sian/Punishment, though damned angry and violent, was also trying to be a good guy, um, gal, ah, Noble. Hell, even Edward, a true bastard, started trending
toward being the Hero of Amber after getting a vision of same.
And I tend to write the same was as I play. So there you go.