(no subject)
Aug. 30th, 2003 01:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_rckFrom Borders, on Tuesday, I went on to the library. I found that bit of the trip very frustrating. I think I need to spend a lot more time and really dig to find the information I want. The public library doesn't seem to have any books focused entirely on Japanese law enforcement or anything much on the science end of criminal forensics (lots of stuff on US laws, social trends and criminal psychology). I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The first topic is rather specialized and the second... potentially expensive, quickly outdated and generally a bit too graphic for most tastes.
I picked up some mysteries set in Japan. I may be able to glean something from them if the authors did their research. I also grabbed some Patricia Cornwell mysteries since I've been told they've got good forensic detail. This will be a bit of a challenge for me since the mystery genre doesn't always work well for me. A lot of time, it requires people Acting Appropriately Stupid (thank you, Smithee Awards), and my sense of story and anxieties don't handle that dreadfully well.
I suppose I'll have to go to the Grad and other U libraries to find books if I really want some. I'd just prefer not to. The stuff there tends to be way too specialized for my needs and often too advanced for my understanding. The last time I did this sort of research, I was looking at ancient Egypt, and I simply couldn't find anything that bridged the gap between extremely general information and stuff so specialized that I'd need to have taken classes to understand the terminology.
For the moment, I guess I'll stick with what I've found online and with the books on crime scene procedure for mystery writers that I've found. The books are hopelessly out of date even though neither's as much as a decade old (an easily spotted clue from one talks about how only the really, really big police departments can afford to use computers...). Hm... I bet there are some online resource for mystery writers. Maybe I can find some.
The reason I'm searching out this information is that I've joined an LJ based RPG and will be playing a police lab type working in Tokyo. I'm rather nervous about the whole thing, simply because that's how my brain is wired. I know I've got a character that I can play, that I'll enjoy playing, and that I've provided sufficient loose ends for the GM to play with if she wants to.
Designing this character actually led to some discussion with Scott about my role playing tendencies. He's of the opinion that, somewhere deep down, I believe that special powers are cheating, that I'd rather solve in game challenges through mundane means. I don't think that's entirely true; I've played a lot of characters with powers. I just tend to get frustrated when I see players who can't solve problems any other way than by resorting to psionics, magic, superpowers or other "loud" methods. I believe that such things should supplement the tools of the normal world, not replace them.
This actually means that I'm in the right section of this new game. I'm working for the folks who use mundane tools pretty much exclusively. I acknowledge that we could be at a severe disadvantage when faced with other pcs who have psionics, but... I won't be nearly as frustrated as some players might over the situation.
We also talked about the traits that my characters tend to have in common. They differ in appearance, skills, histories and motivations, but they have a certain common... style. They're often pragmatic almost to the point of insanity. They'll start giving orders when everybody's been milling around in disarray for too long. They tend to build networks of allies and contacts during the game given any sort of opportunity and have a habit of collecting and paying attention to stray npcs. I try to build characters for whom these traits will make sense.
The question of similarities in my characters came up partly because I like to let GMs know what my playing style is. I've run into problems, both as player and as GM, when the game being run wasn't what was expected or enjoyed. (The most notable was an Ars Magica game. I was quite frankly bored by magical research and wanted character interaction. The GM wanted to present neat puzzles and toys. Fortunately, we were able to resolve things amicably, so that I withdrew from the game pretty quickly, before either of us got frustrated.) The other reason the topic came up was The Estet RPG Mary Sue Litmus Test-- There's a question that asks about similarities to characters you've played in the past.
Since technicalities count, my overall score is 17. I decided that I've played so many characters that this one must have sufficient traits in common with at least some past characters to count. But the whole thing made me think about the characters I've played. There are so many of them that I've lost track. At least half were for campaigns that didn't last or that I dropped out of for one reason or another, and still others were designed for one shots, tailored to fill a plot purpose rather than to be developed as people.
I suspect, though, that other characters of mine would rate higher on the Mary Sue chart. I designed Naoko in a fairly understated style since that seemed suited to what I'd be doing with her and (more importantly) to fit what the GM was asking for. This is a real world person; she needs to operate under the rules that apply to me and the people I know. In another genre, she'd need more bells and whistles, but this isn't Amber or White Wolf or...
All of this thought led me to write a long piece about the major characters I've played that I don't think I'll post here. It's not done, may never be done and likely would bore most readers. Perhaps, if I finish it, I'll write companion pieces about campaigns I've run and my various LARPs. I think I'd like having a record of that.
While I was in the middle of my list, Scott suggested summing each character up in three words. That proved interesting, too. Almost all of the descriptions included "practical," "pragmatic" or "sensible."
I picked up some mysteries set in Japan. I may be able to glean something from them if the authors did their research. I also grabbed some Patricia Cornwell mysteries since I've been told they've got good forensic detail. This will be a bit of a challenge for me since the mystery genre doesn't always work well for me. A lot of time, it requires people Acting Appropriately Stupid (thank you, Smithee Awards), and my sense of story and anxieties don't handle that dreadfully well.
I suppose I'll have to go to the Grad and other U libraries to find books if I really want some. I'd just prefer not to. The stuff there tends to be way too specialized for my needs and often too advanced for my understanding. The last time I did this sort of research, I was looking at ancient Egypt, and I simply couldn't find anything that bridged the gap between extremely general information and stuff so specialized that I'd need to have taken classes to understand the terminology.
For the moment, I guess I'll stick with what I've found online and with the books on crime scene procedure for mystery writers that I've found. The books are hopelessly out of date even though neither's as much as a decade old (an easily spotted clue from one talks about how only the really, really big police departments can afford to use computers...). Hm... I bet there are some online resource for mystery writers. Maybe I can find some.
The reason I'm searching out this information is that I've joined an LJ based RPG and will be playing a police lab type working in Tokyo. I'm rather nervous about the whole thing, simply because that's how my brain is wired. I know I've got a character that I can play, that I'll enjoy playing, and that I've provided sufficient loose ends for the GM to play with if she wants to.
Designing this character actually led to some discussion with Scott about my role playing tendencies. He's of the opinion that, somewhere deep down, I believe that special powers are cheating, that I'd rather solve in game challenges through mundane means. I don't think that's entirely true; I've played a lot of characters with powers. I just tend to get frustrated when I see players who can't solve problems any other way than by resorting to psionics, magic, superpowers or other "loud" methods. I believe that such things should supplement the tools of the normal world, not replace them.
This actually means that I'm in the right section of this new game. I'm working for the folks who use mundane tools pretty much exclusively. I acknowledge that we could be at a severe disadvantage when faced with other pcs who have psionics, but... I won't be nearly as frustrated as some players might over the situation.
We also talked about the traits that my characters tend to have in common. They differ in appearance, skills, histories and motivations, but they have a certain common... style. They're often pragmatic almost to the point of insanity. They'll start giving orders when everybody's been milling around in disarray for too long. They tend to build networks of allies and contacts during the game given any sort of opportunity and have a habit of collecting and paying attention to stray npcs. I try to build characters for whom these traits will make sense.
The question of similarities in my characters came up partly because I like to let GMs know what my playing style is. I've run into problems, both as player and as GM, when the game being run wasn't what was expected or enjoyed. (The most notable was an Ars Magica game. I was quite frankly bored by magical research and wanted character interaction. The GM wanted to present neat puzzles and toys. Fortunately, we were able to resolve things amicably, so that I withdrew from the game pretty quickly, before either of us got frustrated.) The other reason the topic came up was The Estet RPG Mary Sue Litmus Test-- There's a question that asks about similarities to characters you've played in the past.
Since technicalities count, my overall score is 17. I decided that I've played so many characters that this one must have sufficient traits in common with at least some past characters to count. But the whole thing made me think about the characters I've played. There are so many of them that I've lost track. At least half were for campaigns that didn't last or that I dropped out of for one reason or another, and still others were designed for one shots, tailored to fill a plot purpose rather than to be developed as people.
I suspect, though, that other characters of mine would rate higher on the Mary Sue chart. I designed Naoko in a fairly understated style since that seemed suited to what I'd be doing with her and (more importantly) to fit what the GM was asking for. This is a real world person; she needs to operate under the rules that apply to me and the people I know. In another genre, she'd need more bells and whistles, but this isn't Amber or White Wolf or...
All of this thought led me to write a long piece about the major characters I've played that I don't think I'll post here. It's not done, may never be done and likely would bore most readers. Perhaps, if I finish it, I'll write companion pieces about campaigns I've run and my various LARPs. I think I'd like having a record of that.
While I was in the middle of my list, Scott suggested summing each character up in three words. That proved interesting, too. Almost all of the descriptions included "practical," "pragmatic" or "sensible."
