Experiences Sharing The Spotlight

[rae2nerdy]

As a 1x1 roleplayer I think of sharing the spotlight as allowing both playable characters to exist as co-protagonists of the story. Meaning all playable characters have the same level of screen time and same relevance to the plot of the roleplay.

Think of it like reading a book with multiple POV characters, each one with their own specific tie to the plot of the book.

Now this is what a well-balanced roleplay where everyone shares the spotlight should be. Everyone is a point of view character that has their own specific connection/perspective on the story being told.

Now when the spotlight is on ONE character you get a roleplay that reads like a book with a single point of view character. Which is incredibly boring as a roleplay.

Imagine you have created a character. They are on a quest to find a Magical MacGuffin with a whole group of individuals. Each individual has their own strengths and weaknesses and everyone must pitch in to complete their quest.

Well along comes Spotlight Character. And suddenly your character becomes a sidekick. Any skill they might have is diminished by the Spotlight Character. Either the SC has a better skill or the skill is not longer needed in the narrative. The Spotlight character treats your character like a child who has tagged along on THEIR epic quest. If you try to write around this, give your character a bit more importance, well that's just blatantly ignored. And worse the player will sometimes complain to the GM about YOU overstepping your bounds and ruining the story because hey your character can't do XYZ not without Spotlight Character.

Not sharing the spotlight is basically synonymous with taking over a roleplay and making it all about yourself.

At least that's always been my understanding. But since I only do 1x1 I might be a little off.

 

[Zer0]

As a 1x1 roleplayer I think of sharing the spotlight as allowing both playable characters to exist as co-protagonists of the story. Meaning all playable characters have the same level of screen time and same relevance to the plot of the roleplay.

Think of it like reading a book with multiple POV characters, each one with their own specific tie to the plot of the book.

Now this is what a well-balanced roleplay where everyone shares the spotlight should be. Everyone is a point of view character that has their own specific connection/perspective on the story being told.

Now when the spotlight is on ONE character you get a roleplay that reads like a book with a single point of view character. Which is incredibly boring as a roleplay.

Imagine you have created a character. They are on a quest to find a Magical MacGuffin with a whole group of individuals. Each individual has their own strengths and weaknesses and everyone must pitch in to complete their quest.

Well along comes Spotlight Character. And suddenly your character becomes a sidekick. Any skill they might have is diminished by the Spotlight Character. Either the SC has a better skill or the skill is not longer needed in the narrative. The Spotlight character treats your character like a child who has tagged along on THEIR epic quest. If you try to write around this, give your character a bit more importance, well that's just blatantly ignored. And worse the player will sometimes complain to the GM about YOU overstepping your bounds and ruining the story because hey your character can't do XYZ not without Spotlight Character.

Not sharing the spotlight is basically synonymous with taking over a roleplay and making it all about yourself.

At least that's always been my understanding. But since I only do 1x1 I might be a little off.

This is why I do dice.

 

[Damafaud]

Hm... Sharing the spotlight means sharing the attention I think?

Well more than attention, I think it refers more to the influence the characters have on a line of story.

Plot-relevant moments are infinite. It's not checkers, it's imagination. If we're in a important battle there are infinite ways I can make my character relevant.

Hmm... I have to disagree a bit here. In a battle where one character is just unsuited to fight the enemy, some will be sidelined. And by sidelined, I mean that the character's action will have little to no influence in the flow of battle. A character in an roleplay I'm in faced this recently due to bad match up with the enemy. Added to the fact that he doesn't know the others on the cast that well, his action might as well not be there.

 

[Bone2pick]

Ok, ready to go again.

I still think you're utterly butchering the notion of plot and relevance, but for the sake of argument, do give me an example then. Perhaps that will help me see into your perspective better.

And I think you just butchered the phrase "butchering the notion." Btw, you're the first poster in this thread to even mention plot. Since you've chained it so heavily to hogging/sharing the spotlight, does that mean you believe the phrase is non applicable for plot-light/less roleplays?

Give you an example of what? A relevant post? You'll need to be more precise if you'd like me to comply.

The fact that not that all of those things can affect the plot in the same way or are as close to the center of the plot's topic/themes/cause/main focus.

The "plot's center" - whatever that means - is rarely as restricted as you're implying nor is it the well from which writers/roleplayers draw their significance. Have you seen the first Avengers? I'll assume you have. During the course of that film the various characters go on personal journeys (you should absolutely have those in your roleplays) as well as move towards the primary conflict. When the battle comes they disperse and shine in their own unique way. Thor duels Loki and fails to stop him. It's Hulk who eventually puts down the god of mischief. Captain America saves inncocent civilians. Black Widow and Hawkeye, who are overmatched, try their best to survive and hold a position down on a street. And Iron Man redirects a nuke through a portal and blows up the heart of the enemy.

It's all relevant. It's all significant. They don't get the same screen time (a director's choice) but they're all, undisputedly, important heroes. If your conception of "hogging the spotlight" would include sequences like the Avengers final battle, then it's utterly meaningless to me, and imo, is a concession of player fragility.

 

[Idea]

does that mean you believe the phrase is non applicable for plot-light/less roleplays?

Yes, the phrase is non-applicable to those.

The "plot's center" - whatever that means - is rarely as restricted as you're implying nor is it the well from which writers/roleplayers draw their significance. Have you seen the first Avengers? I'll assume you have. During the course of that film the various characters go on personal journeys (you should absolutely have those in your roleplays) as well as move towards the primary conflict. When the battle comes they disperse and shine in their own own unique way. Thor duels Loki and fails to stop him. It's Hulk who eventually puts down the god of mischief. Captain America saves inncocent civilians. Black Widow and Hawkeye, who are overmatched, try their best to survive and hold a position down on a street. And Iron Man redirects a nuke through a portal and blows up the hear of the enemy.

It's all relevant. It's all significant. They don't get the same screen time (a director's choice) but they're all, undisputedly, important heroes. If your conception of "hogging the spotlight" would include sequences like the Avengers final battle, then it's utterly meaningless to me, and imo, is a concession of player fragility.

The avenger's sequence has shared spotlight. While not all at once, each avenger is given moments to shine and do particularly relevant actions for the plot, over the course of the story. Even if we focus only on the final battle and ignore the rest of the movie, we still have hawkeye dropping Loki from the sky, captain America coodernating the team and police, Iron man has the nuke, black widow ultimately stops the portal, the Thor has the greatest impact against the mobs and fights Loki, while the Hulk ultimately stops Loki.

Every avenger is given the spotlight in turns, all given important plot-moving actions tampered to their unique skills, which is pretty hard for somehting like the avengers whose skills pretty much amount to "beat shit up", so props to the film makers for that.

However, in roleplay, the primary conflict can't always be moved by everyone working together. Sometimes it restricts the number of players, it's just not possible otherwise. Hogging the spotlight is when that consistently happens with the same character or group of characters, when it's always the same people who solve all the problems. Sure your character may contribute, but if your contribution had to be made up specifically so you can have something to solve, and even then it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, most would agree that's being treated as second-place.

I will repeat again, though, your personal character arcs are not part of the main plot. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

Give you an example of what? A relevant post? You'll need to be more precise if you'd like me to comply.

Of you making a plot-relevant action out of thin air in a situation where otherwise only a given number of people can participate. In a example, for instance, I stated that some people may be fighting mobs, but that isn't nearly as important as the people who are fighting the big bad or rescuing the the big-shot NPC, but only so many people are actually needed to do that. In another possibility, if the characters are trapped in a room with only one exit, and it is, say, an eletronic lock, you probably don't need more than one or two people to solve the problem.

In instances like that, how do you make your character plot-relevant?

 

[Bone2pick]

Hmm... I have to disagree a bit here. In a battle where one character is just unsuited to fight the enemy, some will be sidelined. And by sidelined, I mean that the character's action will have little to no influence in the flow of battle. A character in an roleplay I'm in faced this recently due to bad match up with the enemy. Added to the fact that he doesn't know the others on the cast that well, his action might as well not be there.

First, if you're character is significantly unsuited to the conflict then I can only imagine two reasonable conclusions.

1. You designed an insufficient character for the roleplay
2. The conflict wasn't designed to be defeated by your character

In case number two you have a couple of options, one of which is to fail. I assume you'll agree with me that's it's often interesting/significant in storytelling for heroes to come up short? Depending on how you execute it your player's failure could end up being the most dramatic and exciting scenes of the battle.

You can also play a critical support role. Personally speaking, I love playing support characters. But if you're often finding yourself in conflicts where your character can't contribute in any meaningful way, you might consider the possibility you created an insufficient character.

 

[Bone2pick]

I will repeat again, though, your personal character arcs are not part of the main plot. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

No they aren't. They ensure the character matters. I would argue they do so much more powerfully than impersonal plot accomplishments.

 

[Idea]

No they aren't. They ensure the character matters. I would argue they do so much more powerfully than impersonal plot accomplishments.

See what I meant? I'll end this discussion here because it's fundamentally impossible for us to achieve an agreement, because we are working with different definitions of plot.

 

[Bone2pick]

It's not a plot issue, it's an importance/relevance issue. Plot accomplishments are merely one way to acquire character importance, but they aren't the only way. And in terms of good storytelling - which is what I strive for - I contend they aren't the best way.

 

[Idea]

It's not a plot issue, it's an importance/relevance issue. Plot accomplishments are merely one way to acquire character importance, but they aren't the only way. And in terms of good storytelling - which is what I strive for- I contend they aren't the best way.

It IS a plot issue, because the relevance in discussion is relevance TO THE PLOT.

 

[Bone2pick]

It IS a plot issue, because the relevance in discussion is relevance TO THE PLOT.

Dead wrong. The relevance is to the character.

 

[Idea]

Dead wrong. The relevance is to the character.

.... May I remind you this is a discussion about how an expression is used? Cause you seem to have forgotten that.

The thing you asked was "what do you mean by "sharing the spotlight"". My answer, the way I use it and see it used is when a character acts or is built in such a way that they don't share the spotlight, that they end up being the ones that have all the relevance to the plot.

Whatever you may think matters or not in terms of relevance outside of the plot has no bearing on the discussion at all. If you belief is that your contribution to the group doesn't matter so long as you making a contribution to yourself, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that's how other people think as well.

 

[Bone2pick]

But you're the only one so far who even mentioned plot. You're the only one who contends the spotlight phrases are non applicable to plot-light/less roleplays - a position I'm not sure the majority holds. And btw, what I think about the phrase's definition holds just as much relevance as yours. You're free to express your logic, and I'm free to disagree with it - which I do. Just because something is a concept, doesn't mean it has validity.

Most importantly, my roleplay philosophy prevents me from ever experiencing feelings of irrelevance or unimportance. My character's value is always in my hands. Internal locus of control versus external. And I can't for the life of me understand how that's not a superior position to roleplay from. Unless one doesn't mind feeling unimportant? But if that were true, there would be no reason to complain.

 

[Idea]

But you're the only one so far who even mentioned plot. You're the only one who contends the spotlight phrases are non applicable to plot-light/less roleplays - a position I'm not sure the majority holds. And btw, what I think about the phrase's definition holds just as much relevance as yours. Your free to express your logic, and I'm free to disagree with it - which I do. Just because something is a concept, doesn't mean it has validity.

What you think it means holds no importance towards what I think it means. In other words if we're discussing about what I think it means, then it doesn't matter what you think it means. The validity of a concept doesn't change because your view differs, though the concept's impact might.

Most importantly, my roleplay philosophy prevents me from ever experiencing feelings of irrelevance or unimportance. My character's value is always in my hands. Internal locus of control versus external. And I can't for the life of me understand how that's not a superior position to roleplay from. Unless one doesn't mind feeling unimportant? But if that were true, there would be no reason to complain.

It's not the character's value worries people. What they experience is not "my character isn't given a chance to be meaningful in the story", it's that, in doing so, the player behind the character is not given that opportunity.

Now you may disagree and say that you feel like you can just do your own thing and that's enough for you. Well, good for you, but the majority of us is trying to do something as part of a group. Our presence as an element of the group, and our contribution to solving the group's problems isn't completely irrelevant and thus when lacking, it results in the alienation called "hogging the spotlight".

I'll stop replying for one very simple reason: I already have a pretty good idea what you're going to reply. I may be wrong of course, especially since I am saying this makes it less likely to actually occur, but I suspect your first go at least will be to either restate something you said before or to insist on the idea that relevance is independent from your participation and contribution to the main plot, something is in exact opposite terms with the DEFINTION I give of the debated term. Thus it becomes impossible to actually discuss this, reason for which I really will just stop continuing to try now.

 

[rae2nerdy]

To put it in a simpler way I believe what Idea is getting at is a kind of hijaking of the roleplay. Sort of like how some people make super OP or Mary Sue characters that become the center of the narrative because their players through tantrums if their Character isn’t the center of the roleplay universe.

As I understand it they’re talking about a variation of this that is more directly later to the ongoing action of the roleplay.

So rather than just being the center of attention because their players have thrown hissy fits about other people trying to “outshine” their obnoxious character they instead take control of the narrative/scene/whatever people are roleplaying at the moment.

And that entire moment and every subsequent moment becomes totally focused on the one super special character.

So it’s sort of a more proactive version of the “ me me me “ mentality that gives you a Mary Sue or OP character.

basically a character / player that has to be front and center of the roleplay at all times is someone who “doesn’t share the spotlight”

And a normal roleplay where everyone contributes to ghe roleplay is where “sharing the spotlight” comes in.

Hopefully this helps

 

[Idea]

To put it in a simpler way I believe what Idea is getting at is a kind of hijaking of the roleplay. Sort of like how some people make super OP or Mary Sue characters that become the center of the narrative because their players through tantrums if their Character isn’t the center of the roleplay universe.

As I understand it they’re talking about a variation of this that is more directly later to the ongoing action of the roleplay.

So rather than just being the center of attention because their players have thrown hissy fits about other people trying to “outshine” their obnoxious character they instead take control of the narrative/scene/whatever people are roleplaying at the moment.

And that entire moment and every subsequent moment becomes totally focused on the one super special character.

So it’s sort of a more proactive version of the “ me me me “ mentality that gives you a Mary Sue or OP character.

basically a character / player that has to be front and center of the roleplay at all times is someone who “doesn’t share the spotlight”

And a normal roleplay where everyone contributes to ghe roleplay is where “sharing the spotlight” comes in.

Hopefully this helps

For the most part that is correct, except what I am saying also includes if a character, regardless of being focused on or not, is the one that always is able to solve the problem or always gets to do the plot-relevant things

 

[rae2nerdy]

For the most part that is correct, except what I am saying also includes if a character, regardless of being focused on or not, is the one that always is able to solve the problem or always gets to do the plot-relevant things

So I guess its something like making a character the in universe GM.

They get to control the story everyone else responds to.

Is that what you were going for?

 

[Idea]

So I guess its something like making a character the in universe GM.

They get to control the story everyone else responds to.

Is that what you were going for?

Maybe? If we start going into the realm of metaphors it's hard to give an exact "yes or no", but I think that's pretty accurate, so I'm going to with a "yes" with the possibility that I'm misinterpreting the implications of what you suggested.

 

[Damafaud]

First, if you're character is significantly unsuited to the conflict then I can only imagine two reasonable conclusions.

1. You designed an insufficient character for the roleplay
2. The conflict wasn't designed to be defeated by your character

In case number two you have a couple of options, one of which is to fail. I assume you'll agree with me that's it's often interesting/significant in storytelling for heroes to come up short? Depending on how you execute it your player's failure could end up being the most dramatic and exciting scenes of the battle.

You can also play a critical support role. Personally speaking, I love playing support characters. But if you're often finding yourself in conflicts where your character can't contribute in any meaningful way, you might consider the possibility you created an insufficient character.

Ah, but case two is exactly the moment where a character can have no impact on the story, or getting kicked out of the spotlight. Even when the character fails, if the failure is immediately covered by another character, the failure won't be significant. The failure won't have impact to the story. Even if the failure feels important to the character, in the big frame of the story, his failure doesn't have any worth. He fails. Full stop. There is no continuation from that.

Also, not all characters are suited to be a support.

 

[Bone2pick]

What you think it means holds no importance towards what I think it means. In other words if we're discussing about what I think it means, then it doesn't matter what you think it means. The validity of a concept doesn't change because your view differs, though the concept's impact might.

Then you're not engaging in conversation. If reason and logic are incapable of influencing you it means you hold an irrational position. And ideas fortified by irrationality should be dismissed.

 

[Bone2pick]

Ah, but case two is exactly the moment where a character can have no impact on the story, or getting kicked out of the spotlight. Even when the character fails, if the failure is immediately covered by another character, the failure won't be significant. The failure won't have impact to the story. Even if the failure feels important to the character, in the big frame of the story, his failure doesn't have any worth. He fails. Full stop. There is no continuation from that.

Also, not all characters are suited to be a support.

If you can't imagine a way for your character to either fail, succeed, or support in a significant way, then the problem is likely your imagination.

 

[Idea]

Then you're not engaging in conversation. If reason and logic are incapable of influencing you it means you hold an irrational position. And ideas fortified by irrationality should be dismissed.

Of f*ck off. That's not logic nor reason that's moving the goalposts, if you change the terms obviously it changes the conclusion. Your terms have no impact on my conclusion, your defintion has no impact on my definition and if you think that's wrong, let's see you prove it.

 

[Damafaud]

If you can't imagine a way for your character to either fail, succeed, or support in a significant way, then the problem is likely your imagination.

Oi, even if somehow the character is able to make his failure significant (emotional breakdown, character development or whatever), it will only significant to himself since the enemy is essentially defeated by the others. The character development is good and all, but it still doesn't make his failure important to the story.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Maybe? If we start going into the realm of metaphors it's hard to give an exact "yes or no", but I think that's pretty accurate, so I'm going to with a "yes" with the possibility that I'm misinterpreting the implications of what you suggested.

I mean sort of like Character A is GM character.

The plot is Character A is left at the alter by Character B. Character C is their best friend and spends the early roleplay comforting Character A and telling them how awesome they are.

Character A starts dating Character D and they get engaged. Character B shows back up and is sorry for leaving Character A. So now it’s a love triangle between Characters A,B,D with Character A making the choice between them.

Basically the entire narrative depends on Character A to be present to exist and move forward.

Maybe GM wasn’t the best way to describe that. Maybe POV character?

 

[Bone2pick]

Of f*ck off. That's not logic nor reason that's moving the goalposts, if you change the terms obviously it changes the conclusion. Your terms have no impact on my conclusion, your defintion has no impact on my definition and if you think that's wrong, let's see you prove it.

Bad form sir. Expecting that the person you're communicating with be open to logic and reason can never be considered moving the goal post.