More on that Austen RPG

[kent_allard_jr]

The GF had Pride and Prejudice on her shelf so I plowed through it in a couple days. I can't say I thrilled to every page but I found it surprisingly readable. (I was embarrassed to find Mr. Bennet derided in the novel, though, since he was the character I most identified with...) Don't know if I'll continue with the others, it depends on how far I pursue the Austen RPG idea.

I'm still not sure how an Austen RPG would actually play, so I'm starting with an easier task: Figuring out how to define characters. Naturally that would depend on the game mechanics, to a huge extent, but a first step would be finding ways to distinguish characters from each other, using as few dimensions as possible. Among the Bennet sisters:

• Beauty. Jane is regarded as the prettiest girl in the neighborhood. Elizabeth is also attractive, while Mary is plain.
  
• Intelligence. This may require more than one dimension: Elizabeth is clever. Mary is bookish, but not brilliant. Catherine and Lydia are foolish.
  
• Propriety. Jane and Lizzy are proper Georgian ladies, while Catherine and Lydia are flirts, and Mary shows no interest in men at all. While this seems to match "Intelligence," memories of Sense and Sensibility suggest they should be kept separate.
  
• Trust. Jane sees the best in everyone, while Elizabeth is more suspicious. (Catherine Morland from Northanger Abbey would be at the low end of the scale, I suppose.)
  
• Talent. While none of the Bennet sisters show much musical aptitude -- Mary sings badly, Elizabeth doesn't practice much -- I think other Austen heroines show some.
  

Some of these characters may have to be set for NPCs but not PCs. "Trust" for example could be established in play; "intelligence" tends to be high for all Austen heroines, and could be left out for PCs. Men, in addition, may have a completely different set of attributes. The question, though, is whether these are a good starting point.

Comments

[mrs-dm.livejournal.com]

You might also want to borrow/rent the BBC miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" with Colin Firth as Darcy. (watch it with your sweetie!) At around 5 hours long, it's much closer to the novel than the many 2 hour theatrical movie releases out there.

However, the miniseries does take some artistic license in two dialogue-free scenes that weren't in the book. They both involve Mr. Darcy with his shirt off.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

They both involve Mr. Darcy with his shirt off.

I read this to Kim and she gave me the "thumbs up" sign, so we might! (Although I can't say I'm looking forward to those two scenes...)

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Yah, but when I finally read the novel, it felt like re-reading it because I'd seen that BBC miniseries.

[bugsybanana.livejournal.com]

If you try no other, give Emma a shot. (Or see the movie Clueless, which is based on Emma.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

I fondly remember Clueless, but I should probably check out a less anachronistic version sometime.

This is one RPG I would play!

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for not knowing the proper terminology here, but I promise I am trying to help.

I like your character traits, but in the spirit of the 1800s in which they are set, I would almost suggest that you make Beauty, Propriety, and Talent primary, um, traits that you roll for or however you assign them. Because you could limit the points for all the traits and people could throw their points into those three alone and not really suffer for not having anything in the other two. I'm totally serious. Be pretty, proper, and play well enough, and the rest doesn't really matter as much. So maybe stratify your traits--have those three be primary and then enliven characters with a secondary tier of classification, on which Trust, Intelligence, etc. could lie.

As for "trust," I'd name it "cunning" or "savvy" because, in fact, what it seems that you're pointing out is not trust or the lack of it in character but their ability to assess who is worthy of trust and who is not. It seems more like the story presentation of the characters to point out that Elizabeth is not necessarily untrusting or, as you put it, suspicious, but cautious and sensible enough not to put faith in outward appearance. Jane would be more conditional--her ability to suss out a person's worth might be dependent on their primary characteristics (higher propriety/talent, more generous her assessment). People like Lydia wouldn't be conditional, they'd just be gullible.

Intelligence, however, should not be left out of your considerations for both NPCs and PCs. There are some heroines, particularly Emma, who aren't all that bright. (Also, I'm sure your friend boosting for you to read/watch Emma is nice and all, but it's not better than Pride and Prejudice and Emma-lovers need to get over that already.)

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

This is one RPG I would play!

Now that is a good reason for me to keep working on it, breaking the TV ban on RPGs!

Trust (or Savvy) is a weird attribute in a roleplaying game, because the players could assess for their characters, without rules having to get involved. Non-player characters might have it. (I'd probably use Cunning instead of Savvy, though, for my own personal reasons: I used Savvy in Two Fisted Tales.)

Re: This is one RPG I would play!

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I forgot: Happy birthday!

Re: This is one RPG I would play!

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Thanks for coming!

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Mr. Bennet isn't a bad person, but he _is_ a bad father. He treats everything _too_ lightly, and that characteristic leads him to a) allow his wife to prattle on embarrassingly at social functions where her behavior reflects his daughters; b) ignore all the warning signs about Kitty and let her go with the soldiers to Brighton; and c) be outwardly rude to his family (like telling Mary to stop playing the piano badly) in a way that, again, hurts his daughters' prospects.

He's not a role model for Victorian fatherhood, that's all.

Re: Mary, she's bookish, but she's not smart. She's much like Mr. Collins: prone to cliche and elaborate, but empty language. She has no emotion, no passion behind her rote memorization and desperate desire to show off that ability to retain information.

Re: "Trust," that's not the right word, and TV's explanation is better. The trait you're talking about is more about accurately assessing other people. Lizzy, though she prides herself on it, is actually terrible at it. She expresses shock when Charlotte announces her engagement to Mr. Collins, but just the handful of interactions the reader sees prior to that announcement you know that she's ruthlessly pragmatic. She woefully misjudges Wickham because he flatters her ego that she has correctly judged the character of Darcy, and she even misjudges Mr. Bingley. She's not as bad as Jane, though, who can't possibly accept that anyone could be a bad person.

Did I mention this is one of my favorite books?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

With Intelligence, I see three dimensions of interest: The ability to hold an intelligent conversation (kind of equivalent to Beauty -- it makes a character attractive); the ability to evaluate other people (what TV called Cunning or Savvy); and finally pure book learning. Mary, naturally, has the third but neither of the other two, which is too bad, because I suspect it'd be almost useless in the game! (Unless I was going to go the Austen with Monsters route and have Mary slinging spells and so forth, which I really don't want to do...)

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

One trait I don't see here that is supremely important (and somewhat related to intelligence) is propriety. Jane, Lizzy, and Mr. Darcy have VERY strong senses of propriety, whereas Lydia, Kitty, and Mrs. Bennett are nearly oblivious to it. This trait affects every action and behavior.

I think that intelligence in this case is a bit more a sense of wit, and thus might be something the player character can drum up his or herself.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Wait, you do have propriety. I... am clearly insane.

Ignore me! Wit/Charm is the missing one.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

He does, however, have one of the best lines in the book, when he explains why Elizabeth must forgo the company of one of her parents.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

It's one of my favorites, too.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

One thing to bear in mind, if you haven't already, is that if at least one daughter doesn't marry well, when Mr. Bennet dies, the family will have nothing. They will lose the house and have no where to go. This is why Mrs. Bennet insists on sending Jane out in the rain, where her "cold" is probably pneumonia.

John Kessel wrote "Pride and Prometheus", a novelette which I do recommend.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this. Mrs. Bennet isn't _entirely_ insane. For an example of what happens in that scenario: Sense and Sensibility. They're left basically penniless and at the mercy of distant relatives to go live in a shack.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

See also: Jane Austen's fate.