The Forge Archives

Hi,

I initially posted this on rpg.net but on reflection the issues raised may be better addressed here.  To the extent it's relevant, this is phrased from an essentially simulationist standpoint, I think the issues though are just as relevant to narrativist play (though not at all to gamist play).

ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS

I'm presently reading The Story of my Life by Giacomo Casanova.

For those in the back row, Casanova was an Eighteenth century Venetian who was famous for his romantic exploits, thus giving rise to the term casanova.

Anyway, the book is tremendously well written. Extremely witty and erudite. It's also in places very surprising.

Sex per se forms a relatively small part of the book, despite what people might imagine. But social attitudes of the time are well depicted, if sometimes unconsciously. Some of those attitudes relate to sex in ways which are unexpected (this is heading to a gaming point, don't worry).

Casanova speaks on a couple of occasions about homosexuality, usually in the context of an anecdote where some guy has made a pass at him or he is mentioning that someone is gay. Casanova's view seems to be that homosexuality is not a moral issue, that is to say he sees nothing wrong with it. Indeed, he explicitly condemns the practices of countries which make it illegal or which pour scorn upon homosexuals. He sees such bigotry as essentially barbaric.

The only time Casanova has an issue with someone being gay is when a guy hits on him repeatedly and won't take no for an answer. He isn't bothered by the suggestion he might indulge, he knows his tastes don't run that way, he is rather bothered by the fact he is being pestered by someone he perceives as behaving rudely in not accepting defeat gracefully.

If he were fictional a modern reader would imagine that contemporary PC attitudes were being put onto the character. But this is a memoir written by Casanova himself. The surprising fact then is that an Eighteenth century rake was in fact more tolerant of homosexuality than most people today. Not what most would expect I think.

In another part of the book Casanova sleeps with two sisters on consecutive nights. One aged 11 and the other 12. Casanova is plainly no paedophile, he simply draws no great distinction between a girl of 11 and one of 21. Nor does anyone else in the book draw much distinction, including the girl's mother who knows about the affair. Casanova expresses surprise that a girl that young is interested, but once he knows she is there is no issue that she might be too young. The idea seems literally alien, it simply doesn't even arise.

Now, back then of course modern notions of childhood and adolescence simply didn't exist. You were either a child or an adult and as far as Casanova and everyone else was concerned if she was old enough to be interested she was clearly an adult for those purposes.

This is to modern sensibilities incredibly alien. An 11 year old today is seen as clearly being a child. That someone would make no distinction between her and a 21 or 31 year old makes no sense to the modern mind. He would in fact be arrested.

What struck me with this was quite how different his culture was, even in very basic things. There is no concept of the adolescent, most people know that but the practical implications of that fact are rarely so explicitly set out. In some things he is more modern than we are, in others he behaves in ways most people today view as not just morally repugnant but possibly even as a form of mental illness.

This is just 200 years ago and we're dealing with a Westerner.

Most games essentially have cultures which are America Lite, perhaps The West Lite if you prefer. There are cosmetic changes, people are loyal to a king instead of democracy, to many gods rather than just one, but fundamental moral assumptions of the modern day tend to still hold good. You don't sleep with 12 year olds in a fantasy game and homosexuality is rarely if ever mentioned.

Some try to depart from this. But generally most don't even bother.

Which leads to the issue of what we miss out by not even trying to put ourselves in another culture's heads. Heroic Greek rpgs rarely address the topic of Greek homosexuality. Western games usually try not to include racial attitudes of the day (often by the simple expedient of basically dropping all black people from the game). But these cultures aren't a huge stretch. I've summarised major differences in Casanova's attitudes from contemporary ones in one internet post, it's not impossible to put yourself in his head.

My impression is that most gamers like only cosmetic differences, elves aren't really alien, they're just Americans with pointy ears. But surely one of the great possibilities of roleplaying is exploring what it would be like to live in another time, another place. What's the point if when we go there everyone is just like us?

Well, to kinda work backward, the "point" is escapism for most. The want to be themselves in the body of someone that can kill like Legolas can. For this large percentage, the conflicts that they want to encounter are the safe, sanitized sorts of things that you find in LoTR.

Does this mean that one has to limit oneself to that? Not at all. Are you just calling for more depth in simulating different cultures? If so, I'm with you all the way. It would be good to see more games like that, IMO.

Do I think such games would sell well? No, I don't. I think that the dearth of material of this sort indicates the market forces present to an extent. Basically, most gamers do not share our predilections on this one.

Oh, BTW, careful with the subject material. I can see why this would be dangerous on RPG.net. Has anyone accused you of being a latent pedophile yet? I can see someone making the absurd connection that given the literature in question that you were simply seeking to vicariously satisfy some sort of vile urges.

On another note, anyone who claims that Cassanova would be mentally ill because of his liasons with girls doesn't understand mental illness very well. It can't be mental illness if it's a societal norm. For example, a sociopath doesn't care what anyone else thinks about them. Cassanova wasn't breaking a taboo, so he could still care. He just didn't have to worry about repercussions. Call the society barbaric if you will, but that doesn't mean that the members of the society are all mentally ill for buying into it's norms.

However, there is always the question of what lines gamers you game with are willing to cross. I can see potentially playing out relations with minors if done in a careful and detached manner, for example, as a source of exploration of setting. In point of fact, some of my players on occasion have made light of the "cabin boy" phenomenon in play (as a sort of couterpoint to modern sensibilities). But for the vast majority, I hope that they'd be offended if someone did take some sort of delight in some vicarious thrill in describing such an action. RPGs are social, and this would be akin to masturbating in public.

OTOH, if you're playing with Dav...just kidding!

Mike

The subject material needs to be dangerous to make the point in a way.  If the subject material is comfortable where is the effort to understand?

I'm not talking about acting out stuff though, and particularly not for a vicarious thrill, rather about attempting to understand other cultures on their own terms.  About roleplaying being more than John with a sword.  About John not being John anymore, or at least making an effort not to be.

I'm 35.  Sure, many gamers (including many older than me) just want escapism.  But the form of our hobby permits of more and one of the things we haven't really seen still is much significant attempt to genuinely use roleplaying as an exploration of other times and cultures.  Instead we have cultures surprisingly like our own, save for surface colour.  Frankly I've played as many escapist fantasies as I need to.  Something a little more adult (and I distinctly do not mean that in the sexual sense) would be nice, something which engages mentally and requires thought.  Something challenging in a way other than whether I can reach the next level.

I don't believe I'm alone in this.  Just as there were and are large numbers (if still a small minority) of frustrated narrativists I suspect there are large numbers of frustrated simulationists who want to explore what it is to be something or someone or somewhere else but instead get handed the same escapist fare but with more rules.

Hi Max,

I'm not sure where to go with this. Your final paragraph in both posts states your point, and it's not a point that bears much inquiry, I think. Or to put it another way, "Yes."

Can you help me out with what you'd like to see discussed?

Best,
Ron

I'd say the simulationist desire to involve the truly alien/different in RPGs can be seen all the way back to the Empire of the Petal Throne - which is not to say that such an endeavor can't be used as simply more exotic escapism, but  . . . I guess I'm just saying the desire for that experience is part of RPG history, and I see no signs that it's gone away.

One direction I can see this thread heading is: what techniques (besides simply "absorbing" a variant set of world-views and etc.) can a game use to help the participants create gameplay that is truly grounded in an alternate mindset?  (Note:  I don't yet know how to have a productive discussion that includes the word "immersion", but I suppose it's worth acknowleding that some people will consider this issue to be all about immersion, whatever that means to them).

Gordon

I'm going to hit this issue from both the pro and con side:

On the pro side, there's something to be said for injecting some cultural realism in our games. As someone who falls solidly in the camp o' narrativism and kind of heavy-handedly injects questions of morality into his games (just ask my group), I think we can examine ourselves and our pre-suppositions by using other cultures as a reflecting point. Using your example of Casanova, it could be easily used to ask the questions:
- Are our sexual mores innate or imposed by society? Does getting rid of those mores liberate us or corrupt us?
- Do we overprotect our children from sex? If it's a normal part of life, what compels us to put age limits on it? Does making teenage sex illicit also make it a compelling deviancy to some?

I see a lot of story potential in using culturally-different settings. To inject a side point, I hereby forever reject the thought of "but some of these subjects would fall flat because my group can't deal with them." If an author made juvenile remarks when writing about sex, or two grown people giggled over sexual passages in a book, I'd call these people out as, well, juvenile and annoying. Why should I treat people differently just because they play RPGs?

---

On the con side, sometimes it's easier to examine ourselves by putting on costumes. We understand our own culture better than we'll understand any others, and putting a little layer of separation by playing "us, but in Roman costumes" for example, can be a liberating experience that allows us to address questions we couldn't otherwise.

Quote from: BalbinusMy impression is that most gamers like only cosmetic differences, elves aren't really alien, they're just Americans with pointy ears. But surely one of the great possibilities of roleplaying is exploring what it would be like to live in another time, another place. What's the point if when we go there everyone is just like us?

I'm going to ignore the items about Casanova's life and attitudes and such and address the real point here. I've been doing some reading on this sort of thing, actually. In fact, check out the exerpt for Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060391685/ref=lib_rd_ss_TT01/104-2128576-0047954?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=4#reader-link) by Robert McKee. Pay special attention to the example of Like Water for Chocolate in the excerpt.

Quote from: Robert McKeeThe archtypal story unearths a universally human experience, then wraps itself inside a unique, culture-specific expression.

So, for our purposes here, since this is a book on storytelling, this would be a Narrativist form of play. So we would need a Premise to anchor the alien culture or else it won't appeal. To go back to Casanova and his affair with an 11 yr old. If we focus on the fact that she's a minor, at least by our society's view, then the story is fairly hollow. If, instead we address some form of premise, perhaps losing sex appeal as one ages noting that Casanova was surprised she was interested, then we have something we can work with. In this case she is not a minor because in her society she is not considered a minor and this was not a crime that he committed. So, we have a universal human experience, aging and the loss of sex appeal wrapped in the cultural reference of Casanova's society where the concept of child and adult is different from what we in the 21st century know.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't believe I'm alone in this.  Just as there were and are large numbers (if still a small minority) of frustrated narrativists I suspect there are large numbers of frustrated simulationists who want to explore what it is to be something or someone or somewhere else but instead get handed the same escapist fare but with more rules.

Yes  - though this demands a lot of the setting/GM.  Now, what do you think of solutions à la Pendragon, where the set of relevant contemporary values is embodied in the rules ?

Balb, I think I'm going to echo Ron here and just say...yeah.  I'm a member of that choir.

There's a lot of funky stuff that's perfectly normal in other societies that are just plain unfathomable to "us".

I think the most effective way this can be introduced in roleplaying games you've hit upon above already.

Picture the players in the game with Casanova as an NPC.
Introduce "little girl"
See "little girl" flirt with Casanova
See Casanova express surprise but arrange the liason
Allow players to react.  At some appropriate intersection have them become aware that the mother already knows.  Have whoever else the players are protesting to express shock and amazement that the players are so outraged (assuming they are).

In other words...break the players into what is considered "normal" for the society by allowing them to witness it...Connecticut Yankee style.

And building on what Ralph said - that is in fact the tactic in Empire of the Petal Throne, where the characters themselves are set up to be outsiders visiting the great city, so that the players can learn the culture as the characters do.

I'm wondering if we can find some other tools here, though . . .

Gordon

Gordon wrote:

QuoteI'm wondering if we can find some other tools here, though . . .

The most obvious permutation on Ralph's excellent approach is simply to replace Casanova as NPC with one of the PCs.  In other words, stage a party where PCs are guests and have the mother of a "little girl" (hold the fact that she is a "little girl" in abeyance) approach a PC about a liason with her daughters.  Make it clear through the dialogue that the mother is perfectly comfortable with what is to come. If the PC shows interest, introduce the "little girl" and use this as the opportunity for the PC to learn something about the cultural mores in play.  This would seem to work if the PCs have created characters who are cultural "insiders" as opposed to "outsiders" just learning about the culture.  Even if the PC reacts with disgust, horror or the like it's no real problem since clearly some insiders to a culture react to parts of their own culture in a similar way.

This is an interesting thread since at the moment I am thinking about sketching out a setting for Ron Edwards' Sorcerer & Sword that owes part of its inspiration to Suzy McKee Charnas' excellent Walk to the End of the World.  In this setting the definitions of appropriately "manly" behavior probably will not comport with many of the players' operating assumptions of same.  For example, sex between men is considered the highest expression of virile behavior, male friendship, etc. while sex with women is reserved for immature boys and purposes of simple procreation.  This thread has been helpful to me in thinking about how best to introduce this departure from what I imagine will be their expectations.

Cheers,

Eric

Sorry to followup my own post, but I forgot to add that plenty of other ways exist to introduce the same thing.  Perhaps the material culture of the people could reflect their sexual or other cultural mores through:

vase paintings that depict the behavior in question
tapestries or other textiles that do the same
songs, drama, literature, etc. that celebrate the values in question

This is obviously a very partial list but once you decide on something that is a cultural value, start thinking about the myriad ways in which they might inscribe this value in all sorts of ways within a cultural system.

Cheers,

Eric

Quote from: Valamir>SNIP<

Allow players to react.  At some appropriate intersection have them become aware that the mother already knows.  Have whoever else the players are protesting to express shock and amazement that the players are so outraged (assuming they are).

My one thing here is that it would be pretty boring for every story to a Connecticut Yankee story. This has made me rethink the role of worldbooks because if the whole group is on the same page about the culture, then it can fly a little more smoothly. That is, I think it can fly anyway, but it'd fly smoother.

I'm a little surprised some folk here can't see what there is to discuss.  The equivalent thread on rpg.net is now at 62 posts without a single flame and contains a lively discussion of how desireable it is to portray alien cultures per se and how one can practically do so while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in making them too alien or the game too didactic.

Anyway, there are a number of issues, not limited to the following:

1)  Obviously for most people gaming is about escapism.  Not for all though.  That being so, if it is true that some wish to explore other mindsets how can this be achieved?  Are there mechanical approaches which would assist?  Are there practical GMing techniques or play techniques that would assist?  What are the pitfalls in attempting to reflect other cultures more accurately when in actual play?

2)  Can the exploration of other cultures mores shed light upon our own?  Obviously yes.  That being so could the better portrayal of such be a potentially powerful technique for exploring issues in gaming about ourselves and our own values?  Clinton touches on this to good effect and it is something I see generally as being basically ignored in most games, narrativist or otherwise.

3)  What makes something difficult to roleplay?  Is it simply a question of taboo issues or are there areas which are not taboo but remain too alien to still accurately portray?  If so, given we are human and speaking of human viewpoints what does that say about us as humans?  Does that mean the roleplaying of aliens or fantasy races as anything other than men with pointy ears is necessarily impossible?  Should we even try or is the only point in portrayal of the non-human the gaining of nifty powers?  

4)  Can the tension between our own values and those of the cultures we portray in game be used to generate drama in and of itself?  Is there potentially a way of creating story now by utilising our own discomfort?  If for example we play a game set in heroic age Greece with the premise, What does it mean to be a Hero?  Can the tension between our notions of heroism and the highly divergent classical Greek notions of heroism assist in investigating that premise?  If so, how can this most effectively be done without lapsing into didacticism?


Thierry takes us interestingly into the realm of mechanics.  Pendragon is one of the very few games which attempts to mechanically assist the player in entering into a different mindset.  It does so successfully and is highly regarded.  And yet, almost nobody else has adopted this approach (Fading Suns being another honourable exception).  This is an interesting pragmatic point, clearly what I am speaking of can be done because Pendragon has done it, Fading Suns has done it.  Is this the best way to do it though or are there, as Gordon asks, other tools?

Does that help?

Quote from: BalbinusAnd yet, almost nobody else has adopted this approach

I would disagree there. Any game, like Hero Wars, that gives a bonus (augmenting base skills) for playing appropriate cultural keywords uses this approach, even though the modern way is to propose incentives (carrots) rather than constraints on behaviour.

Yet I'm not sure that providing sets of cultural values corresponds to what you have in mind. It tells you what is valued (Courage, Compassion whatever...) but it doesn't tell you what acts the culture considers as showing (or lacking) courage, compassion etc.

Far away and long ago, in a thread called I listened to my friend's game last night (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=60254#60254), Mike Holmes made a really cool suggestion: when the PC just ate her favorite meal, she gets +1 to her damage rolls.

You could convey a culture to the players the exact same way.  Set up a short list of actions that get you your bonus, like "have consensual sex with someone (regardless of age or gender)" or "take a sauna then dive into the lake through a hole hacked in the ice" or "eat haggis" or whatever.  (sex, health, food... need fashion too, what else?)

Like Pendragon only with actions, not traits.  Like Dying Earth, too.

-Vincent

Dust Devils takes a similiar approach with the various methods available for "healing" damage...a shot of whiskey, a daliance with a saloon gal, etc.

Its not so obvious in DD because that's a mind set that (via hollywood) we are all pretty much aware of.  Translate the technique into something less familiar and I think it would work fabulously.

"Hmm, I've suffered damage to my Noble Bearing stat, how will I get it back...ahh I know...I'll have my way with a serving girl and then impale a peasant for looking at me wrong...that should do the trick..."

This is an interesting concern. I ran into a similar problem with my Legends of the Five Rings game. I have one player who is very into Bushido and Japanese culture, to point where he has practically adopted it. The rest of my group, who incidentally are all relatively inexperienced 'casual' gamers, had a real problem playing in the world.
    You see, the one player wanted to play the very foreign culture of Rokugan to the hilt, complete with kow-towing, culturally accepted lying, caste system arrogance, the whole nine yards. The rest of the group wanted to be: 'us, but with big swords and nifty martial arts abilities.' I had real trouble reconciling the different views on playing in this foreign, incrutably Oriental culture. And of course the joke is that Rokugan is already watered down. Eventually I had to give up on my L5R game and play 7th Sea to keep my group from breaking up entirely.

Hi Vincent,

This mechanic was central to my unpublished game Fantasy for Real, which has been so cannibalized both for my and others' games that it'll probably never get completed.

It's also central to the refreshment mechanics for The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

I agree with the idea of mechanics as a powerful means of conveying and reinforcing unexpected or unfamiliar culture.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but isn't this a clear case of the basic ideas of "Baseline-Vision" theory in action? If cultural mores (especially the player-characters' own) are unfamiliar or unexpected, they're an aspect of "Vision" which must be supported by a scaffolding of system. Any element of system, from resolution mechanics to GM play of NPCs to the GM's description of the tapestries on the walls, could contribute to this.

- Walt

Quote from: BalbinusI'm a little surprised some folk here can't see what there is to discuss.  The equivalent thread on rpg.net is now at 62 posts without a single flame and contains a lively discussion of how desireable it is to portray alien cultures per se and how one can practically do so while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in making them too alien or the game too didactic.

A challenge, eh? Well, we are a bit literalist here. Your question at the end of the original post seemed to only ask if it was a good idea. Which for us here is a done deal assumption.

But you want advice on how to do this well? Well, why didn't you say so, Englishman? I've got whole rants on subjects like this. :-)

First to your specific concerns.

QuoteThat being so, if it is true that some wish to explore other mindsets how can this be achieved?  Are there mechanical approaches which would assist?  

First, a couple of good mechanical approaches have already been mentioned. But do you remember the work that Mr. Elliot and the rest of us did on The Kap?
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1296
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1410

And then the abortive follow up that I had with Gareth on Mesopotamia?

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1454

These all sought strong mechanical ways to really explore setting.

Aria?

QuoteAre there practical GMing techniques or play techniques that would assist?  What are the pitfalls in attempting to reflect other cultures more accurately when in actual play?

Well, the obvious answer is work, work, work. The biggest problem with trying to do this sort of game, is that cultures are massively complex beasties. Moreso than I think people are cognizant of. But we're all subtly aware. This is why when watching Stargate every once in a while it bugs you that everyone speaks English. I mean, I'm sure there's some bogus reason, but you still get this notion that everyone's just from some shell of a culture.

So, as Tolkien knew, to get a really powerful portrayal of a culture start with a realistic language. Now, who has time for that? Basically you can't make up an entire culture. It's impossible. No one person knows enough.

So what can you do? Well, there are several options. The first starts with the notion that all humans are similar in some basic ways. That is, we all need to eat, etc. These basics can then be extended. The option that usually gets used is to then assume that almost everything is the same as some culture you're familiar with, except for exceptions. That is, you get Vikings who worship only one god. Or you get English folks who can cook. ;-)

This is a bad technique. First, it often, as my example above, relies on stereotypes. This makes a culture seem like cardboard if it isn't instantly obvious as to the technique used. Even putting in a lot of exceptions is problematic. One still wants to have a from the "ground up" sort of experience.

OTOH, this can be used with an understanding that it is an artifice to explore small selected areas. For example if you want to look at monotheism in a iron age tribe, then the Viking thing might not be so bad.

In any case, as we can't make it all up, we have to have some method. Well, one thing that I like is to make up only what I need. That is, I only describe what the players come across, not defining things befor hand. That way, I don't have to have everything thought out, and can develop what's needed in play. This way, I can have those "issue" features present, and still portray something with an illusion of depth.

The problem with this tactic is that as GM I often don't think far enough out of the box and end up with bland or, worse, American (or Viking, or whatever), descriptions for the facets encountered. This can be really tough to overcome. So it's important to prepackage enough. This is classic Illusionism, or No Myth play if out in the open.

Another tool is to get the players in on it. See the Iron Game Chef Sim entry called Sign in Stranger. One of it's mechanics is that the players must regularly invent behaviors that have no explanation. Then they invent the explanation. That's such a cool idea that Em better publish it before someone beats her to it. In any case, players can be a font of creativity to draw from, and sometimes randomness is just what the doctor ordered.

Another note is to avoid the "stereotype" feel by ensuring that you display the culture as individuals. While the stereotype may actually be good for defining graspable qualities for the culture as a whole, nothing brings it home like an exception to the rule. And within the mores, taboos, and other cultural limits there should be variety. A good sign of an unbelievable culture is one that has no lattitude in members across many parameters.

Quote2)  Can the exploration of other cultures mores shed light upon our own?

Again, this seems boolean. We'll all agree. What are you looking for in this one?

Quote3)  What makes something difficult to roleplay?  Is it simply a question of taboo issues or are there areas which are not taboo but remain too alien to still accurately portray?

I'd say this is a spectrum (but then I say that a lot). As things get more alien, they get more difficult obviously. I don't think portrayal of anything one can imagine is impossible, per se, but I do think that after a time that there comes a point where players just won't. There's only so much entertainment to be had from this, and at a certain point it's not rewarding.

So, no, I'm not playing in that game of yours where we're all energy beings floating endlessly through space for eternity, and correct play consists of huddling in the Foetal position for hours.

OTOH, any reasonable human culture I think can be rewarding (an unreasonable one being, perphas one that killed all their children, which couldn't be a culture). This gets a big YMMV.

QuoteIf so, given we are human and speaking of human viewpoints what does that say about us as humans?

It means we have limited patience. But that's not a big flaw IMO.

QuoteDoes that mean the roleplaying of aliens or fantasy races as anything other than men with pointy ears is necessarily impossible? Should we even try or is the only point in portrayal of the non-human the gaining of nifty powers?  

I'm on record as saying that it's merely difficult to portray aliens. Again for most people that's not enough reason to play. But for some it is. I've been the Hiver before. And played for acccuracy. Hard. But rewarding in it's own unique way.

Part of this sort of play becomes, again as above, the player having to fill in what the game text does not as occasion arises. And to the extent that a GM wants a player to play this way, he ought to give that player huge Directorial powers. In fact he ought to give the aliens to the player as a whole. Anything less makes it night impossible.

Yet another example of appropriate use of Director Stance for Sim play.

Quote4)  Can the tension between our own values and those of the cultures we portray in game be used to generate drama in and of itself?  Is there potentially a way of creating story now by utilising our own discomfort?

Sorta. Depends on what Drama is. But, yeah, when we see a Klingon eat bloodworms, that does evoke emotions in the player. This can be used to some good effect. Whether or not that's Drama, I'm not sure. Sure can be suspenseful, tho.

QuoteIf for example we play a game set in heroic age Greece with the premise, What does it mean to be a Hero?  Can the tension between our notions of heroism and the highly divergent classical Greek notions of heroism assist in investigating that premise?  If so, how can this most effectively be done without lapsing into didacticism?

This one I'm not so sure on.


Is that any better?

Mike

Hi Max,

As a rule, please don't issue comparative RPG.net/Forge challenges. There's no reason that any particular topic here should "match" its discussion there, or vice versa.

Speaking specifically and non-comparatively regarding the Forge, you'll have to come up with a topic with more meat than this one to get much more discusssion of worth.

Basically, what you're saying has nothing to do with Narrativism vs. Simulationism. You're talking about depth of Simulationist experience and (in personal terms) emotional commitment to playing outside of one's own values.

And what can we say about this? Nothing. We know you'd like to do it. We know that you wish other role-players would like it more, or were better at it. The only possible response is, "Neat. Now we know one possible way that you, Max, want to play."

That's it. Nothing more to say. It's not much of a topic.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Walt FreitagI agree with the idea of mechanics as a powerful means of conveying and reinforcing unexpected or unfamiliar culture.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but isn't this a clear case of the basic ideas of "Baseline-Vision" theory in action? If cultural mores (especially the player-characters' own) are unfamiliar or unexpected, they're an aspect of "Vision" which must be supported by a scaffolding of system. Any element of system, from resolution mechanics to GM play of NPCs to the GM's description of the tapestries on the walls, could contribute to this.

My suggestion on the mechanics here would indeed be to think about Baseline and Vision; if the goal is to get people to explore alien (in whatever sense) mindsets and cultures, I'd be very specific in designing the tension.

Let's take the Casanova example.  Now I suspect, and I think Balb. suspects, that most players are going to think 18th century as all foofy clothing and whatnot, basically modern Americans but pompous and oddly dressed.  I haven't really looked into 18th century games, but take whatever is standard and expected in them (and the novels and films they reflect) and set that as Baseline.

Now you've got Vision: this is the stuff you're digging out of Casanova, which as it turns out is really different from the Baseline.  Cool.

But now you need to prioritize.  I mean, you could explore practically anything here about the differences between the players' expectations and the realities of the mid-late 18th century.  So you decide that you're going to prioritize sexual mores, because this is the Casanova RPG, not the 18th C. RPG.

Here's the trick: you need to mechanize (to some degree) the prioritized tensions, but you're going to have to give up on the de-prioritized tensions.  So you need to reward the player who responds to the offer of an 11 year-old girl with, "Hmm, I'm afraid I really prefer larger breasts, Madame," or "Hmm, okay!"  Similarly, you need to reward the player who responds to a male pass with, "No, but thanks for the compliment."  Meantime tensions less important to you will have to go by the wayside.

To take a similarly charged example, if the players want to deal with the Church in a grotesquely modern fashion, you have to accept this; if on the other hand they constantly make remarks about how half the priests are gay, you don't accept this (punish through mechanics).

That's a bit strong, I suppose, but my point is that there's no reason you can't explore such things, encourage that exploration, and reward it.  You just have to be very clear.  You need to think about how they players are likely to respond, and how you think they ought to respond, and use that to push them into the tension area.  This will focus their attention, and provoke the exploration of morals and so forth that you want.

Incidentally, a lot of this sort of thing went into designing the aliens in Aurora.  In order to set up a Baseline, we went to some lengths to encourage people to do the Star Trek thing: oh, I see, those guys are basically samurai with funny ears, etc.  Then we bend and twist wildly so as to provide the Vision, and hope that tension will happen.  My problem with that system is that the chief designer really dislikes personality mechanics of all sorts, so he was unwilling to use mechanics to provoke the tensions and reward getting away from Baseline.  Result?  Most players ignore 90% of the species descriptions and play Star Trek aliens in new rubber suits.

Chris

Yesterday, when this thread was more about homosexuality and pedophilia, I hesitated to enter the fray; I did not want to appear to be the stick-in-the-mud moralist throwing a wet towel on a good idea.

The idea has expanded now, so I can say a bit more; I've also had a bit of time to consider the problems of the narrower focus.

I did create a playable alien race whose radically different mindset made them truly inhuman; I know how hard it is to do, and to play. The race is used to populate a world in which player characters are human visitors (regarded as aliens by the indigs). This is partly because it's a Multiverser world and that's how Multiverser is usually played; but it's also because getting into the mindset of an alien is an extremely difficult task requiring that whoever does it work all the way back to the core beliefs and assumptions of the character and all the way forward to the impact of those beliefs on action. Asking a referee to do this in presenting the world is hard enough. Asking players to come to this level of understanding in an ongoing and developing character personality is more than most want to do--as someone's Rokugan example illustrates.

I am in favor of exploring the alien, though, whether it's culture or religion or time or place. I just a few weeks back posted a Game Ideas Unlimited article on the idea of getting into the mindset of the people in the world you're presenting, so that they're not just us in a different place.

I am also on record as supporting play of people who are different--most commonly cross-gender, but also alternative sexualities--as a way of understanding how other people think. I usually do it on a more subtle level (although I play one female character for every two males, I think), exploring characters whose attitudes are different from mine in more fundamental personal levels (the cavalier who assumes that everyone will follow him).

In regard specifically to the Cassanova issue, though, sure, if you want to play something like that, and you feel that it's something your group can handle, more power to you. Some people aren't going to be comfortable playing in such a game, and I trust you're willing to let them step out of it and find another game. But if you're talking about publishing a game which encourages players to be involved in imagined pedophilia (as defined today), you might be crossing the line into child pornography; and in this country, at least, that's not only a criminal offense but a Megan's Law matter, which could really mess up your life for the long term.

Not all people who oppose pedophilia do so from cultural biases; I know a few people in the medical and mental health professions who maintain that it is unhealthy physically and emotionally for children of that age to have such relationships no matter how badly they want them. I know a girl who started taking serious interest in sex when she was about six or seven; I know of a family in which incestuous sexual contact between underage cousins as young as five was occurring outside the knowledge of the adults, with some pretty severe consequences. It is not clear that any child interested in sex is old enough to be involved in it, or that any particular mother understands this. In our society, pedophilia may be the one sexual offense that is not becoming acceptable, and I'd be careful about getting connected to anything that appears to promote it.

I hope that comes across as reasonable concern. I know that Max is not trying to promote real pedophilia, but it might appear from the outside that he was, and that could be problematic.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: lumpleyFar away and long ago, in a thread called I listened to my friend's game last night (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=60254#60254), Mike Holmes made a really cool suggestion: when the PC just ate her favorite meal, she gets +1 to her damage rolls.

You could convey a culture to the players the exact same way.  Set up a short list of actions that get you your bonus, like "have consensual sex with someone (regardless of age or gender)" or "take a sauna then dive into the lake through a hole hacked in the ice" or "eat haggis" or whatever.  (sex, health, food... need fashion too, what else?)

Hrrm.  This seems like a possibly successful approach, but conveying culture has been an extremely important aspect of my Vinland game, and I have taken the opposite approach.  I avoid mechanizing any of the cultural or psychological aspects of the game.  And I have to say that it is working pretty well.  The players are doing pretty well at internalizing slavery, arranged marriages, raiding, and a bunch of other issues.  

You describe this as a "cool suggestion" -- but have you had much experience using it in play and found it to be more successful?  

Personally, I have disliked all of the personality mechanics that I have encountered in play.  To Chris Lehrich -- while I'm sorry to hear about the rubber-suit problem in Aurora, consider as a counter-example the Ripper CoC game, where we threw out the Sanity mechanics -- and what we got was an absolutely terrific set of mental breakdowns (even from Cullen, who is not exactly a shining star of role-playing).  

I think a problem I have is that this approach is that it seems to emphasize what I would say are surface traits, at the expense of depth.  You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.  Someone will eat haggis because it gives a bonus, but they have no idea *why* someone would eat haggis.  (OK, well, maybe that's not the best example -- since I don't think anyone can understand why one would eat haggis. :-)

Quote from: John KimYou encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.

That's my problem with the refresh mechanics as well. However, I'm interested in the solution, as someone suggested, of having a set of cultural values (Pendragon-style) *and* refreshing them with the appropriate actions (Dying Earth-style).

Nope, John, nicely asked: I haven't played with those kinds of culture mechanics.  I have no idea if they'd actually work.

I agree with you that my suggestion is too superficial for serious internalization-of-alien-culture games.  Have Sex with 18th Century Kids the RPG needs a serious, subtle, dude well thought out system, which I ain't got.

But if all you want to do is play up cultural differences at the color level, like say a game about 18th Century libertines where the meaty conflicts are about money and political power, and who they have sex with is just color -- superficial could be good enough.  (That's where I'd put the Dying Earth refresh mechanics, too.)

Quote from: youI avoid mechanizing any of the cultural or psychological aspects of the game. And I have to say that it is working pretty well. The players are doing pretty well at internalizing slavery, arranged marriages, raiding, and a bunch of other issues.

What techniques are you using to communicate the cultural stuff?  Exposition, the actions of NPCs, anything else?  I'm also curious about like the expertise breakdown of your group -- are you The Authority on such matters, or is everybody sort of in there mixing it up?  How does your group handle conflicting opinions?

(Not challenging, just curious, in case I need to say so.)

-Vincent

Quote from: John KimPersonally, I have disliked all of the personality mechanics that I have encountered in play.  To Chris Lehrich -- while I'm sorry to hear about the rubber-suit problem in Aurora, consider as a counter-example the Ripper CoC game, where we threw out the Sanity mechanics -- and what we got was an absolutely terrific set of mental breakdowns (even from Cullen, who is not exactly a shining star of role-playing).  ... I think a problem I have is that this approach is that it seems to emphasize what I would say are surface traits, at the expense of depth.  You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.

I think this is a question of balance, and of knowing your players fairly well.  A few mechanics here and there -- which can be extremely slight and small -- may prod players into doing something they wouldn't otherwise think to do.  My sense is that good players will then try to back-justify.  That is, they will try to figure out why their PCs have done whatever they've done.  In order to make the world coherent, which is often important because otherwise you're lost all the time, you start trying to understand the world and its attitudes.  And that leads to depth.

The example I gave, about Casanova, was predicated on the assumption that the game would be "about" sexual mores and so forth.  If the game is not about this, if (as in the Ripper CoC game) it's really about exploring the setting and the characters' places within it, I think the tension between Vision and Baseline is sufficiently strong that you don't need a lot of mechanics to force it.  In that case, in fact, the Vision was sufficiently unclear (to the players and PCs) and so apparently powerful that everyone kept pushing toward it, through exploration, out of a desire to be powerful, not get killed, and figure out what the hell was going on.

I guess my point is just that "mechanics" need not be strongly formalized; in the case of personality mechanics, I think the only reason to formalize them is if you want them to be centerpieces of play, as otherwise they do indeed become surface behaviors done merely for rewards.  (Note: it sounds like TROS does this well, but I haven't really read it yet, I admit.)

Quote from: lumpleyWhat techniques are you using to communicate the cultural stuff?  Exposition, the actions of NPCs, anything else?  I'm also curious about like the expertise breakdown of your group -- are you The Authority on such matters, or is everybody sort of in there mixing it up?  How does your group handle conflicting opinions?  

Well, several people are mixing it up, but I am usually the final authority.  I'll commonly defer to Liz or more rarely to Jim on historical matters about  Iceland and Scandanavia -- but I can in principle trump this by saying that things are different in Vinland.  If a point is controversial for some reason, I think I'll sometimes open it up to group decision.  There is never a formal vote, but people will all have their say.  

An example of this was the session before last, when Jim played a Whimsy Card named "Ominous Omen" -- and he suggested that it be an eclipse, which would be pretty darn major and he wasn't sure if that was going too far.  I was ambivalent about accepting that, partly just because of its momentous nature and also because of the cultural question of how well they predicted eclipses.  I turned the question over to the group, though.  We talked about it, and Heather said "I just went to the *land of the dead*.  I think we can handle an eclipse".  Everyone agreed with that.  I thought it was a little unfair, since her travelling to the land of the dead to outward appearances just meant that she went into a trance and came out a while later to report on what her dead grandmother said.  An eclipse is actually much more major and overt.  

I think the relationships are a vital part of the culture play.  Almost all of the original PCs are now married (and Kjartan is scheduled to marry at the end of the summer).  There is a big web of relationships which connects everyone.  This is something which has developed over the course of the game.  I think it really gains momentum: one solid relationship suggests another, which when played out suggests another, etc.  Originally it was more action/adventure-y, but at this point it is very soap opera-y.  (By the way, I should give feedback Chris' suggestion of soap opera structure in another post.)  

One thing which I have blatantly tried to hammer home is the idea that there is no privacy.  They live in a big open house with all their relatives, with servants frequently around.  This is important for play, because it means that most discussions with NPCs are open season for rumor to pass on, and the PCs inevitably see that rumor come back to them.  Whenever they speak to an NPC, it is always public unless unusual steps are taken (which themselves will draw comment).  Upon reflection, I think this is important for PCs behavior, because they take things like honor seriously since they are being judged on it, and since they judge others based on it.  

NPCs are important, but they need to be established through action and relations.  I have several NPCs who I think I know pretty well, but they've never taken off in play.  Just chatting with an NPC gets nothing, I find.  There really needs to be substantial issues to interacting with that NPC -- i.e. seeking her help in some matter, trying to impress, negotiating for something, etc.

Just really quickly... System Does Matter simply says that there are better and worse tools for running a game for a set of people. System is just how we determine what happens in-game. If the system is, "whatever you want" or equally loose (AKA freeform) on some particular point like sanity failures, and that system works best, then that's the right system. System Does Matter, doesn't mean you have to have mechanics for everything. In fact that would be impossible.

I'm very fond of mechanics for most applications, for instance, but freeform is just as valid a choice for others. And there are probably other choices as well.

Mike

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Max,

As a rule, please don't issue comparative RPG.net/Forge challenges. There's no reason that any particular topic here should "match" its discussion there, or vice versa.

Speaking specifically and non-comparatively regarding the Forge, you'll have to come up with a topic with more meat than this one to get much more discusssion of worth.

Basically, what you're saying has nothing to do with Narrativism vs. Simulationism. You're talking about depth of Simulationist experience and (in personal terms) emotional commitment to playing outside of one's own values.

And what can we say about this? Nothing. We know you'd like to do it. We know that you wish other role-players would like it more, or were better at it. The only possible response is, "Neat. Now we know one possible way that you, Max, want to play."

That's it. Nothing more to say. It's not much of a topic.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

The rpg.net reference was in response to the suggestion that I would experience a problem with flames for posting the same stuff there.  Sorry if it was inappropriate, I would note though that the comparison was already in the thread.

As for the no topic point, I've been away over the weekend but on my return I have already noticed a number of interesting posts and examples.  Mike has a great post which I will need some time to work through, MJ Young's comments are interesting (and I'm glad the initial choice of example didn't bar him once discussion progressed, sorry for that MJ), Chris, Brian, John and others have good points.  People are saying things.

Put another way, I'm seeing discussion which is interesting and sheds light (in particular the discussion of personality reinforcement mechanics) on the issues I've raised.  I'm a little surprised to see that apparently quashed with a declaration that there is not much of a topic.  Surely if the topic is not of interest to you the answer is simply not to respond?  If there is nothing to say it will naturally drift off the first page without further answers, if there are further answers equally it must be that some people have something to say.

Quote from: Balbinus a.k.a. MaxMJ Young's comments are interesting (and I'm glad the initial choice of example didn't bar him once discussion progressed, sorry for that MJ)

It's O.K. As I said, I didn't want to come out saying that games that promote fantasy pedophilia are bad things without being able to phrase it in a more rational manner (after all, apart from being trained a theologian, I've got a degree in law). It kind of took me aback, as I've got a couple of articles "in the bullpen" about sex and gender issues in roleplaying games for my Faith and Gaming series (alas, I believe they go up at the beginnings of July and August, respectively), in which I suggest that whether such play is appropriate or proper is very much dependent on the players. I think that some of the things proposed here would be over the line for me--but not for everyone. After all, there are some people who would have trouble with their own gender identity if they played a woman, and I do that all the time with no qualms. I have a regular discussion with a Baptist pastor friend, and we got on Song of Solomon (a very sexual book of the Bible), and I observed that if we understand this right, King Solomon is explaining to us how women feel by portraying the feelings of the woman in the text--he is in essence roleplaying the bride so he, and we, can understand her. My friend responded that he always tries to think as a woman when he prepares his sermons, because he often finds insights into the materials that women get and men miss, if he can get into that perspective. Getting into someone else's perspective through role playing is wonderful.

Somewhere around here there's an old thread in which I described the night our entire family traded roles--we each played someone else in the family for something over an hour or two. We all learned a lot about each other, and about ourselves, by seeing how others in the family see us and showing how we see them. Really, other than the question of whether a particular gamer wants to go there, how is this different?

--M. J. Young

Quote from: ValamirI think the most effective way this can be introduced in roleplaying games you've hit upon above already.

Picture the players in the game with Casanova as an NPC.
Introduce "little girl"
See "little girl" flirt with Casanova
See Casanova express surprise but arrange the liason
Allow players to react.  At some appropriate intersection have them become aware that the mother already knows.  Have whoever else the players are protesting to express shock and amazement that the players are so outraged (assuming they are).

In other words...break the players into what is considered "normal" for the society by allowing them to witness it...Connecticut Yankee style.

This part I cannot agree with on any level.

The characters are from a culture in which girls below the 'modern' age of consent are allowed to be sexualy active. The characters presumably should know this. They have presumably lived in this culture all their lives and accept this as a fact of life, yet rather than tell the players so that they can roleplay their characters appropriately, you set them up so that they can't help but play their characters in an inapropriate way.

Why are you introducing this scene in this way? The characters are not Connecticut Yankees, although the players might be. You're deliberately setting up the players in a situation where you're minimizing the chance that they will be able to play their characters realisticaly. Why? What is your motivation?

It seems to me you are manipulating the game situation for purposes
that are purely metagame, and highly dubious ones to boot.


Simon Hibbs

Simon,
Characters are not real.  You can say all you want about "play your character" and "be immersive", but at the end of the day, characters are imaginary.  They are not and never will be real.

The greatest actor in the world will never be able to play a character exactly as that character would have existed no matter how much study he does.  

You can try to be as immersive as possible but you will never completely exorcize the metagame experiences of your own life from your portrayal and you will never fully understand the character and what the character knows as well as the actual character would if he was real.

So given that 1) metagame influence will ALWAYS be >0%, and 2) your portrayal of your character will NEVER be 100% realistic; your point becomes one of quibbling not over metagame vs no metagame but how much metagame is tolerable; and not one of realistic vs not realistic, but how not realistic you can be to maintain suspension of disbelief.  This then is a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to.  

But in the end, it is not the characters who are being hooked by a scene.  Characters can NEVER be hooked by anything.  They are figments which don't exist.  Only PLAYERS can be hooked by a scene and therefor the GM must communicate in a manner that the PLAYER can understand.  If that involves setting things up in order to penetrate a player's metagame knowledge (i.e. that set of assumptions about life that all players carry with them) in a manner that may perhaps not be a "purist" portrayal, than so be it.  This is common practice in historical novels and period plays anyway.

The alternative is to that is either 1) expect your players to be walking period encyclopedias and to have read all the same source material as you, or 2) play something else.

Quote from: Valamir
So given that 1) metagame influence will ALWAYS be >0%, and 2) your portrayal of your character will NEVER be 100% realistic; your point becomes one of quibbling not over metagame vs no metagame but how much metagame is tolerable; and not one of realistic vs not realistic, but how not realistic you can be to maintain suspension of disbelief.  This then is a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to.  

I disagree. Games involve a social contract between players and the referee. What it is right or wrong to do in that game is based on that social contract. I don't think many game social contracts contain within them a clause that the GM can deliberately withhold information from players that their characters have, and set them up to get embarrased due to that lack of information.

QuoteBut in the end, it is not the characters who are being hooked by a scene.  Characters can NEVER be hooked by anything.  They are figments which don't exist.  Only PLAYERS can be hooked by a scene and therefor the GM must communicate in a manner that the PLAYER can understand.

I think you've jumped threads. I'm not arguing that characters are non-fictional. That may or may not be, but it is irrelevent to this situation. This isn't about player/character motives or attitudes, it's about player/character information. Do you realy think it's fair to deliberately withhold obviosuly relevent information from players that their characters have? What kind of game social contract do you think best supports that kind of approach to play? Does your gaming group have a social contract that supports or encourages this, and how does that work in practice?

QuoteIf that involves setting things up in order to penetrate a player's metagame knowledge (i.e. that set of assumptions about life that all players carry with them) in a manner that may perhaps not be a "purist" portrayal, than so be it.  This is common practice in historical novels and period plays anyway.

Quote

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Can you give some examples of what you mean here (re. historical novels or period plays)?

QuoteThe alternative is to that is either 1) expect your players to be walking period encyclopedias and to have read all the same source material as you, or 2) play something else.

(1) Is rediculous. If you as GM are specificaly setting up a situation where a minor propositions a player characters, it's blindingly obvious that the social mores concerning that, which the character must be aware of, are relevent information to the player. Communicating that information to the player is a trivial task.

(2) Is very sensible. I'd have to seriously consider whether I want to play a game in which information relevent to the game, and which is obviously available in the game world to my character, is denied me, apparently purely in order to amuse the GM. I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I'd find that acceptable.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

Quickie note that Max is right, and this thread is kicking along just fine. I was getting perturbed after the first page, but then people sort of invented the focus, and all is well.

Best,
Ron

Quote

QuoteThis then is a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to.  

I disagree. Games involve a social contract between players and the referee. What it is right or wrong to do in that game is based on that social contract.

Now slow down a bit Simon.  You opened your last post by saying "you cannot agree on any level".  If you want to amend that to caveat individual groups social contract rather than a blanket opposition, you'll find we're in agreement.  After all "a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to" is precisely an issue that would get worked out within the social contract.

Quote
I think you've jumped threads. I'm not arguing that characters are non-fictional. That may or may not be, but it is irrelevent to this situation. This isn't about player/character motives or attitudes, it's about player/character information. Do you realy think it's fair to deliberately withhold obviosuly relevent information from players that their characters have? What kind of game social contract do you think best supports that kind of approach to play? Does your gaming group have a social contract that supports or encourages this, and how does that work in practice?

Haven't jumped threads at all.  There is no "intentional witholding of information" going on anywhere in this thread.  The entire thread is about how to get the setting/cultural specific information into the hands of the player to begin with.

In other words:
1) There is unique game world information on a social / cultural level that would be sufficiently of an alien nature that the GM can not assume the players have an appropriate mindset.
2) Exploring the difference between our mindset and that of the period is a desireable outcome of play (from the very first post).

How then does one get this information that the players do not currently have INTO their hands.  I submit there is only 1 of 3 ways.

1) Expect them to read up in advance and become literate on the subject before play (which we both agree is unlikely).

2) Frequently interrupt play for interludes of "what your character knows" exposition.  Occassionally this is useful...most often it is collossally tedius and boring...like a text book being haphazardly delivered by a GM.

3) Find a way to introduce elements of this mindset to the players DURING PLAY in a way that doesn't interrupt the narrative but still serves to highlight how different the culture is from the players innate assumptions.


My Connecticut Yankee technique is one such method of delivering the information.  It is not intended to be a "got you" or a "now your character looks stupid" event.  It is a technique whose purpose is entirely targeted AT THE PLAYER.

This "at the player" is where my discussion of players being real and characters being fictional fits in.  At the end of the day it is entirely irrelevant what a character may or may not know, unless you have a way of getting that knowledge to the player.

This technique is designed to give the PLAYER that "ahhhhh, so this world has a different set of mores than I'm used to" moment of understanding in a way that is driven home much more powerfully than simply reading a list of "things you should know" bullets.

Quote

QuoteIf that involves setting things up in order to penetrate a player's metagame knowledge (i.e. that set of assumptions about life that all players carry with them) in a manner that may perhaps not be a "purist" portrayal, than so be it.  This is common practice in historical novels and period plays anyway.

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Can you give some examples of what you mean here (re. historical novels or period plays)?

What I mean is simply this.  All players carry with them "what they know" as players.  This includes the moral and ethical knowledge of whatever culture they are from / familiar with.  Since characters are not real, players can only have their character act based on their own knowledge.  This is why metagame is impossible to completely purge from play.

For example: if the setting is the 1820s deep American south set among the plantation aristocracy, there is a certain mindset about slavery, the superiority of the white race, the peculiarly American version of Noblesse Oblige, etc.  For most modern players with modern egalatarian ideals and the benefit of decades of the civil rights movement to draw upon, this is a very alien mind set.  How is a player supposed to accurately portray a character in such a setting, without that character behaving in an anachronistic manner colored by the player's modern sensibilities.

Alternatively the contrast between the player's modern sensibilities and the period reality may be the entire point of play in which case you literally do have a "Connecticut Yankee" scenario where the Audience (i.e. the player as Audience) is the Connecticut Yankee observing the goings ons.

One way to get players to know how their character should be acting is to illustrate the behavior.  In many novels there is a character who is inconsequential to the actual story of enormous importance in translating the story for the reader.

As examples take Last of the Mohicans or The Virginian.

In both of these novels the main characters are infinitely familiar with the setting...Pre Revolutionary New York Indian Tribes and Frontier Life in the first, and Itinerant Cow Hands in the second.  In both of these novels the setting is pretty much unknown to the reader.  In both of these novels there are characters whose primary purpose is to witness the events as an outsider sees them so all of the stuff that the main characters would take for granted and never think twice about have the opportunity to be displayed.

For an SF example, the 5 novel Exordium series (with some of the best most believable and most alien cultures ever devised for a SF universe), also has secondary characters who are somewhat outsiders and who exist primarily for the benefit of the reader.


Now all of these use minor characters to interpret the actions of the major character for the reader.  So one possible way to do this in an RPG is to have the players observe NPC interactions.

Thing is...Watching NPCs interact with other NPCs for any length of time is inherently boring.  The PLAYERS need to be involved.  So, the technique of translating the necessary information moves from the secondary characters to the PCs in order to keep the PLAYERS involved and interested...regardless of how much sense it does or doesn't make for the CHARACTER to be in such a situation, it is the PLAYERS that need to be involved...else they might as well be watching a play.

Quote(2) I'd have to seriously consider whether I want to play a game in which information relevent to the game, and which is obviously available in the game world to my character, is denied me, apparently purely in order to amuse the GM. I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I'd find that acceptable.
Simon Hibbs

I am at a complete loss as to where the idea of information is being intentionally denied for the amusement of anyone.  The entire point of the thread is how to deliver information, not how to withhold it.

1) expect your players to be walking period encyclopedias and to have read all the same source material as you[/quote]
There ways around this.

"You are approached by a young girl of about eleven or twelve....uh in this society the age of consent is considerably younger. In our society it is the equivilent of being 18. Young yet adult."

Sure...but that's hardly as powerful in terms of its impact on the player.  In fact, all you're really doing is reducing it to trivial color.

Nothing about the player's mindset is being challenged here.  All's he's doing is translating your 11-12 year old into 18 years old in his head, and then proceeding to play exactly as if you'd just made her an 18 year old to begin with.  IMO not very compelling, and not very illustrative either.

YMMV, OC

True, and thus the problem with examples. I am just of the mind that it is possible to explore the new, unfamiliar worl without having every single session being a Conneticut Yankee story which, IMO would be a feature similar to the party mentality (see the other recent thread) and make roleplay take on a paculularity that is not about the medium but about the players choices. That is, a group can chose to play Conneticut Yankee, that's their choice. But Roleplaying does not need to be Conneticut Yankee to compelling, either.

Quite, I was highlighting 1 method that I think would work best for the particular subject matter used as an example at the beginning of the thread.  Certainly overusing this technique would have its own set of problems.

Quote from: Ralph 'Valamir' MazzaNothing about the player's mindset is being challenged here.  All's he's doing is translating your 11-12 year old into 18 years old in his head, and then proceeding to play exactly as if you'd just made her an 18 year old to begin with.

Ah, but is that a mistake?

If we're talking about enabling the players to play their characters appropriately and experience the world as period characters, wouldn't it be exactly right for them to think the way you're attempting to avoid? If an 18 year old girl made advances on me, I would have a certain sort of reaction; if a 12 year old girl made advances on me, I would have a different sort of reaction. However, isn't part of the point of this that for the character I'm playing, if a 12 year old girl made advances on him, he would react in much the same manner as I would if an 18 year old made such advances on me?

As an aside, I think from what was cited in the source text, Cassanova was taken aback by the idea of a girl that young being interested. Perhaps all the player needs to know is that there are no laws about pedophilia in this realm (it obviously isn't England, which has been enforcing such laws for centuries), no legal age of consent. In that case he can be suitably shocked at the idea of a girl that young being interested without the accompanying reaction that this would be illegal.

There doesn't seem to be a really effective way to handle this specific situation. Ralph's method has merit because the player is likely to react almost appropriately (a girl that young is a surprise, even if there's no law about it); we find fault because somehow the player ought to be told that the concept "jail bait" has no meaning here. Yet there doesn't seem to be any simple way to convey to the player both that there's no legal or social stigma to the situation and that his character would be surpised by it.

Tough one indeed.

--M. J. Young

I've been flopping back & forth on this, partially because I am of two minds on this issue, considering Jonathan's thread on the separation of Players & Characters. On the one hand the characters are not real, right. They are merely imaginary constructs in the players' heads. Therefore the characters do not have reactions, the players do. However, as imaginary people living in an imaginary world responding to imaginary stimuli, the characters do can conceivable have an imagined reaction, then. The players may then have a reaction to the imagined reation, as they have a reaction to every other item in the shared imagined space.

Quote from: ValamirSure...but that's hardly as powerful in terms of its impact on the player.  In fact, all you're really doing is reducing it to trivial color.

It is trivial colour. The setting has different conventions from our society. Why is that such a big deal?

QuoteNothing about the player's mindset is being challenged here.  All's he's doing is translating your 11-12 year old into 18 years old in his head, and then proceeding to play exactly as if you'd just made her an 18 year old to begin with.  IMO not very compelling, and not very illustrative either.

YMMV, OC

I think that's the point. This is a situation the character would consider normal, so why try to fix things so that the player reacts in an abnormal way for the setting? You're breaking the game flow out of a roleplaying mode.


Simon Hibbs

I don't know how to express it any differently than I've already done Simon.  Except to point out that you are operating from the assumption that immersion within a characters mindset is the primary goal (or even a goal) for all roleplaying.  It very well may be for you.  But you should start with an understanding that many think it is not only unnecessary but a tiresome and boring way to play.

As a player I want you to hook ME.  I want you to interest ME.
I have about zero interest in pretending my character is interested when I am not.

My character doesn't exist.  It is a piece of paper with numbers on it.  It can not be bored, shocked, surprised, annoyed, frustrated, or anything else.

I can.

The game should be directed at ME.  After all, I'm the one spending hours of my time choosing to play.  Hooking the character is a waste of effort if you don't hook the player.

What I took away from the first post was not so much an interest in how to play historically accurate characters.  

QuoteWhich leads to the issue of what we miss out by not even trying to put ourselves in another culture's heads

QuoteMy impression is that most gamers like only cosmetic differences

QuoteWhat's the point if when we go there everyone is just like us?

This is clearly about interesting and challenging the players.  Raising their awareness of the cultureal differences and allowing them as players to be stunned, impressed, horrified, revolted, or whatever.

The CHARACTERS may simply take everything for granted...so what...boring.  If the character simply treats a 12 year old the way we would treat an 18 year old, than we might as well just be playing in the modern world and run the scene with an 18 year old.  What's the point of exploring a different culture if all we do is translate it into something familiar.

IMO.  Collosal waste of time.  If you aren't going to actually USE the other culture as anything more than background color; stick to a culture everyone already knows and is familiar with and don't waste the effort.

If you're going to go to the time an effort of setting your game in a completely different culture. something that is intentionally NOT just American treehuggers with pointy ears; then it had best be something meaningful to the PLAYERS.  If its only meaningful to the characters its pointless.  Characters have no meaning.

Just to head off the obvious counter-argument, Ralph isn't saying that it's wrong to enjoy the immersive mode, it's just one option. A valid option, but not one he's interested in apparently. I myself can enjoy either.

The point is, however, that Ralph is correct in that he was pointing out that what Max is looking for is an exploration of the difference. That's why people are having problems. They realize that to get this you need to have two things delivered.

First, you need to have the feeling that this is abnormal delivered. That is, that it's different from what you think is normal. Then you need to also have delivered that the character thinks it's normal. It's precisely the disparity between the player's feelings and the character's feelings which are sought.

This exists in all sorts of RPGs already. Consider Unknown Armies. It's exactly that you don't have your "meters" reset, and the characters do that makes the game disturbing. As the character becomes inured to killing, you aren't supposed to become inured as well (and if you are, I don't want to know you). What you're supposed to experience is the horror of the idea that a character that's a protagonist is having such terrible emotions.

(BTW, for those following the thread on RPG.net, this is precisely the problem that posters are having trouble with on that thread. There are those who think that the only way to get a kick out of RPGs is vicariously, and hence that having a character do these things is tantamount to actually doing them, and then there are those who understand that one can dispassionately observe the character as an author does. Steven King isn't evil, his characters are.)

This is certainly fertile ground for exploration in terms of setting, culture, etc. A fairly open mechanic would be to reward players for looking into these differences. That is, instead of saying, "huh, just like 18, well then, whatever," saying, "just like 18, well, does that extend to the neighboring country as well, or is it just a local thing?"

Mike

Quote from: ValamirI don't know how to express it any differently than I've already done Simon.  Except to point out that you are operating from the assumption that immersion within a characters mindset is the primary goal (or even a goal) for all roleplaying.  It very well may be for you.  But you should start with an understanding that many think it is not only unnecessary but a tiresome and boring way to play.

I suppose I'm arguing that some level of immersion is necessery, otherwise you are not actualy playing a character, you are simply responding personaly to what happens to a character that is seperated from you, much as a reader of a book might react to what happened to a character in the story. Roleplaying is more than this. Once you remove or limit a players ability to play their character, which is what you're doing by denying in-character information, you are weakening the link between player and character that is necessery for roleplaying to take place. You are making the player more a passive observer and less a participant.

QuoteAs a player I want you to hook ME.  I want you to interest ME.
I have about zero interest in pretending my character is interested when I am not.

My character doesn't exist.  It is a piece of paper with numbers on it.  It can not be bored, shocked, surprised, annoyed, frustrated, or anything else.  .....

If you're going to go to the time an effort of setting your game in a completely different culture. something that is intentionally NOT just American treehuggers with pointy ears; then it had best be something meaningful to the PLAYERS.  If its only meaningful to the characters its pointless.  Characters have no meaning.

This is all true, but I believe that in the way you suggest presenting this cultural difference is not actualy through the medium of roleplaying. Suppose I play a character in a game set in ancient Rome. All sorts of behaviour that we consider sexual depravity is considered normal. I am perfectly aware of this, I as a player have read about Caligula and Tiberus' antics on Capri, and know the facts. However suppose the game is set in a Roman brothel - we've infiltrated it to get close to a Senator that frequents it. Through the medium of roleplaying, I am presented with information I already know, but in a very different context. My character may feel relaxed about what is going on in the rooms around him, but I as a player may not. The creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting will certainly strongly colour my experience of the game.

Personaly I don't think I'd run a game in that setting, or enjoy playing that part of the game all that much, but I think it's a valid way to use the cultural diffferences in a setting to underline it's difference from our peresent culture. It's also a way of doing it within the medium of roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbs
This is all true, but I believe that in the way you suggest presenting this cultural difference is not actualy through the medium of roleplaying. Suppose I play a character in a game set in ancient Rome. All sorts of behaviour that we consider sexual depravity is considered normal. I am perfectly aware of this, I as a player have read about Caligula and Tiberus' antics on Capri, and know the facts. However suppose the game is set in a Roman brothel - we've infiltrated it to get close to a Senator that frequents it. Through the medium of roleplaying, I am presented with information I already know, but in a very different context. My character may feel relaxed about what is going on in the rooms around him, but I as a player may not. The creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting will certainly strongly colour my experience of the game.

This is all true Simon, I'm in full agreement with you.  But we already covered this above when we discussed the alternative is to make sure that all of your players are walking encyclopedias of period knowledge.  See YOU'VE read about Caligula and Tiberus but have the rest of the players (or seen the somewhat censored History Channel version)?

How would you convey the same creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting to players whose sole exposure to Rome was the movies Gladiator and Sparticus.  They have no context for any of the things that you allude to above.

I return to the 3 points I've already made:
1) expect them to become educated before playing.
2) find a way to deliver the context to them during play
3) don't play because they lack knowledge you deem to be a prerequisite.

Do see any other option?  This thread in general, and my suggestion that you took issue with was solely about #2.  You've already agreed that option #1 isn't very practical.  I have the sense that your first choice would be #3, in which case there is no game and there's nothing further to discuss.

But assuming #2, what other methods would you use to convey this information from the GM who knows to players who don't during play where their characters should be expected to.  

The steps I outlined above was one such way.  Obviously it is not the only way, but it has, for me, the key advantages of: keeping the players involved and not sitting on the sidelines watching NPCs interact, and not stopping play for the GM to deliver paragraphs of explanatory exposition.
Personaly I don't think I'd run a game in that setting, or enjoy playing that part of the game all that much, but I think it's a valid way to use the cultural diffferences in a setting to underline it's difference from our peresent culture. It's also a way of doing it within the medium of roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs[/quote]

Quote from: Valamir

I return to the 3 points I've already made:
1) expect them to become educated before playing.
2) find a way to deliver the context to them during play
3) don't play because they lack knowledge you deem to be a prerequisite.

I believe a combination of 1 & 2 can work.
1)Since the vast majoritiy of RPG's out there require a large amount of reading just to create
a charachter, Reading a few pages of background info is not much of a problem. It should definaly be integrated into the social contract however.  Also, a failure to recall information should not be used by the GM to embarass the player, but it may require breaking play
for 'explanatory info' (which could provide incentive in itself).

2)I think this can also integrated into the context of play, say by having the players observe the actions of NPC's and peoples reactions.

My point is I don't see the communication of necessary info as a barrier to this sort of play.
Actually, it may even be possible to explore these things by having players observe NPC's, but I don't think that would get the desired reaction

The easy solution is just play Multiverser; then when we drop you into Cassanova's Vienna, you have no clue what the norms are, and you know it, so you're exploring the culture from the outside.

O.K., not what everyone wants to do, but it does solve the problem of players not knowing what characters know.

You can do the same thing in other ways. Would the British ambassador to Vienna have any clue regarding the cultural mores of the locals? In his country, it is quite definitely punishable under law to engage in such conduct with anyone under eighteen, and more severely so with anyone under thirteen. If what you want to do is create a tension between the player's views and those of the game culture, giving the player a character who is himself a stranger to the culture may give you the best of all worlds. You can get that Cassanova reaction, when the young girls make a pass at the PC, and their mother encourages it; you can even bring in the quite natural (and embarrassed) efforts of the PC to find out from someone with some official standing just what the laws are in this regard. I can see a PC trying to talk to a constable or some court official or a lawyer in an effort to get the matter clarified, without saying anything that might reflect badly.

QuoteEr, excuse me, sir? I, well, earlier tonight, I became aware of some young ladies--they were very young ladies, children, really, at least by British standards--who were flirting with grown men. I'm a bit of a stranger here myself, but back in England we call such girls "Jail bait", as their seductive efforts can get a man in a great deal of trouble. Yet no one at the party seemed concerned by this, and it was actually suggested by someone purporting to be the girls' mother that, er, private liasons with the girls might be arranged. I thought before I got anyone in trouble--well, indeed, as local ambassador, I will have to advise British travelers on the matter--just what is the law about this?

That may be a fourth way to handle it: create PC's who know no more than the players, for whatever reason.

--M. J. Young

Hey Ralph.
It's late and I need to get up in the morning, but I note that you are making the same distinction of player vs character I was making until I changed my mind.

Quote from: ValamirThe game should be directed at ME. After all, I'm the one spending hours of my time choosing to play. Hooking the character is a waste of effort if you don't hook the player

How about using an element of play to hook the character, an element that has been hooking players and readers and film/tv audiences for years: the characters? If the player is hooked by their own PC and then the PC is hooked, this would work, right?

Of course Jack.  You're still hooking the player.  That's the whole point of Kickers.  What is a Kicker except some situation regarding a character that a player is hooked by.

Imagine a GM imposed Kicker handed to a player.  Its every bit as cool and kick ass as any Kicker that's ever been written...except its something that the player in question couldn't care less about.  Does it work?  Does it work as well?

Lets say the GM comes up with a great hook that fits right into the character's background.  Does the character care?  Does the character care whether the hook makes sense or if the GM is expecting the character to do something that's....err...out of character.

Nope.  The character doesn't give a rip whether or not he has the opportunity to avenge his fathers death.  Only the  player cares...or doesn't care.

IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player.  If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

Quote from: ValamirIF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player.  If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

The question then is if the player does not place high or any priority on the goals and backgrounds written on the character sheet, then why are they written down in the first place?

I have an answer from my own experience, because the GM told me to. Hence I do not play with that group anymore.

Quite,
Other reasons would include:

1) point based games where these things made it onto the sheet for the benefit they gave at Char Gen without any desire to actually see it played.

2) games that require "Player must select 1 Flaw" type of thing, where the choice may wind up being not one the player likes, but rather one that the player dislikes least.

3) players who are resigned to being led around by the nose by the GM who feel obligated to include such things on their sheet for the GM to use (i.e. the poster child for Hooking the Character)

4) playing a pregen.  Here I'm thinking going mostly off of templates provided in the game.  For convention games there are different expectations and I think often players are willing to cater to those.  But you will still see squabbles over who plays what character which are really nothing more than trying to find one that hooks the player.  You will also often see players playing stock characters totally out of character because the character as written didn't hook them.

Hmmm.. uh-huh. All of which strike me like making love through a hole in a sheet. I kind of like to look at her, thank. Look at her eyes.

Now, are we saying that this is how some people play and this may not be for some or are we identifying a problem?

At this time Jack, I've completely lost all track of your train of thought.

What point are you trying to get to?

If you are attempting to question the rationale between my distinctions of hooking me vs. hooking the character you are heading down a completely different track from the context of that discussion.

I made that point in the context of Simon's comments about metagame, it had nothing to do with creating interesting characters (except to point out the fact that the very act of creating a character that it specifically interesting to the player is itself a huge Metagame act).

Quote from: Valamir/Ralph MazzaLets say the GM comes up with a great hook that fits right into the character's background.  
...
IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player.  If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

It seems to me that both sides are talking past each other here.  I think Ralph is assuming a style along the lines of Sorcerer, where there is a "hook" which the GM comes up with.  Jack is I think talking about a different style where the PC itself is the "hook" for the player.  These aren't "hooks" in the same sense of the word.  They are different styles of play.  Both can work, but they are distinct.  

As a player, I tend to prefer a more background-based play similar to what Jack is talking about.  My experience has been that I prefer it if the GM does not try to do anything active to "hook" me.  My best experiences have often come from times when the GM didn't even understand my PC.  Instead, I like it if the GM simply concentrates on developing his NPCs and background to make it interesting to play off of.  

On the other hand, as a GM I do tend to actively come up with hooks since that is what my players tend to prefer.  I have run two campaigns in a purely open/un-pre-plot background-based style, but the majority are more directed than that.  The point is just that it varies.  While the GM can take effort to "hook" the players, that isn't a part of all play styles.  Alternately, the players can be responsible for making characters hooked to the situation and setting.  

---------------

But we have a particular topic here, which is conveying other cultures.  My first reflection is that it is best to introduce things slowly, and to start with the familiar.  I played in several campaigns set in T'ang dynasty China.  The GM knew an enormous amount about the culture and gave us long handouts, which I even read.  And yet still, I always felt I was floundering and not understanding in social interactions and elsewhere.  

My main thought is that it is important to build up context.  You can't start the campaign with all aspects of life fully fleshed out.  In my current campaign, I have (as it turns out) phased in different parts of life.  Originally, politics, economics, and marriages were assumed to be happening but were not paid attention to.  However, increasingly they have become a focus of the game.  Originally the focus was on more familiar elements of viking life: feuding and raiding.  Over time, though, context built up and details of other parts of life fleshed out.  

With regard to Casanova, I think I would start out the campaign assuming that sexual encounters were taking place but skimming over any questions regarding them.  I think I would bring up questions like sex with minors only after context was built up over attitude towards children.

I'm not sure you're following my point precisely John (and BTW you have Sorcerer backwards, its the player who creates the "hook" not the GM).

There is never ever a situation where a character is hooked...by anything...ever.

Characters are not real.  They cannot DO anything, they cannot respond to anything, they cannot be hooked by anything.  

I don't care how much time you spend developing an intricate background for your character, it isn't your character who's being hooked.  Its you.

Part of your interest in being hooked as a player, may well be to be hooked through the vehicle of the character...but its still you the player being hooked.

The point of all that tangental discussion, was to demonstrate that to achieve the effect desired in the initial post at the start of this thread...that being the active highlighting of "alien" mindsets found in cultures with radically different morals from our own REQUIRES that those issues be directed *at the player*.  Because directing them at a character who doesn't exist is pointless to the exercise.

I disagree Valamir.

Take, for example, the Warhammer game I'm currently playing in. My character started off as a devout follower of Sharafali, a few sessions in he discovered that Sharafali is, in fact, a particularly evil elf holding all of humanity in salvery. So he was a bit pissed off (to put it mildly). A few sessions later we discovered another religion - 'the Old faith', a very nature based religion, and my character's current aim is to find out all about this, and possibly become a follower of it.

It's a great bit of accidental plot, and what's more it's not something that interests me at all. I'm an atheist, and very happy being one at that. Religous discussions almost invariably irritate me, particularly nature religions. I am really enjoying this only because it hooks the character. Not me; the character.

Back to Casanova. I fully agree with Simon - to do it as you present it would shatter the immersion of the roleplay and, for the way I like to play, annoy me. It is near impossible to roleplay a character in a foreign place you can only access through your imagination anyway, without deliberatly breaking that link to make an out-of-game point about the culture.

Sorry Mr. Jack.  What you just described may be the way you describe such things.  But your description is inherently impossible.  I'll repeat.

QuotePart of your interest in being hooked as a player, may well be to be hooked through the vehicle of the character...but its still you the player being hooked.

If you are really enjoying it...than you are the one that is hooked.
You may be hooked on behalf of your character...but your character is just a piece of paper.

As an exersize.  Rewrite your post without once ascribing emotion, action, or motivation to an entity that doesn't exist.

For example:  "and my character's current aim is..."

should be rewritten as:

"my current aim for my character is..."

Rewrite your post in this manner and it will become immediately obvious who is being hooked.

Moderator:  You may wish to split off these last several posts which have turned into a discussion in their own right only tangentally related any longer to the purpose of this thread.

I think I misunderstood you, Ralph, I believed you were saying that a hook needed to engage with the player's real-world aims and interests, am I incorrect in this?

I find your distinction in terminology unhelpful. To constantly discuss these things in a clumsy third person is, I feel, about as useful as saying 'you are not feeling anger, what you describe is merely the increase of Neurotransmitter X'. A distracting reductionism that, while true, does not help progress the discussion.

Quote from: ValamirThis is all true Simon, I'm in full agreement with you.  But we already covered this above when we discussed the alternative is to make sure that all of your players are walking encyclopedias of period knowledge.  See YOU'VE read about Caligula and Tiberus but have the rest of the players (or seen the somewhat censored History Channel version)?

How would you convey the same creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting to players whose sole exposure to Rome was the movies Gladiator and Sparticus.  They have no context for any of the things that you allude to above.

My point is that even if I already know the facts of the situation, I will still experience an emotional response. Likewaise I think that anyone told as a matter of fact 'in this era, the age of consent is effectively zero' isn't realy going to stop them being creeped out personaly, even if their characters aren't. At least giving them information their characetrs have gives them a chance to roleplay, as against simply produce a game response that is that of them as 20th century westerners when that is clearly inapropriate in-game.

To me, it's simply about power and freedom. Information is power. This information empowers the players to play as they choose. Denying them that information denies them the opportunity to play a role other than simply themselves.


Simon Hibbs

I agree with Mr. Kim that the sides are still talking from differen,t equally valid, points of view. These represent certain preferences, and as such, I think that both sides are just saying what they'd like to see. And that's not going to go anywhere, IMO.

I offer as proof that I personally can see both sides of the argument equally well, and could enjoy either approach (and I think I'd hardly be unique in that).

Mikee

QuoteI think I misunderstood you, Ralph, I believed you were saying that a hook needed to engage with the player's real-world aims and interests, am I incorrect in this?

Engaging a player doesn't necessarily mean that it is something a player agrees with.  You don't need to BE a capitalist pig to portray a character who is a capitalist pig.  But you DO need to have a desire to do this.  It has to be something that you as a player want to portray or else it simply won't get portrayed, because the character isn't going to portray itself.

QuoteI find your distinction in terminology unhelpful. To constantly discuss these things in a clumsy third person is, I feel, about as useful as saying 'you are not feeling anger, what you describe is merely the increase of Neurotransmitter X'. A distracting reductionism that, while true, does not help progress the discussion.

Actually its very helpful.  True it would be clumsy to discuss it this way all the time.  But it is a profoundly helpful concept to understand.  When you say "My character does" what you are really saying (via shorthand) is "I have my character do"

The implication of this are quite profound.

For instance.  One ongoing theme that gets oft repeated like a mantra is how immersion requires the absence of metagame.  Its one of those dogmatic things that people now repeat without really thinking about it.  Ultimately it is proveable false as the above excercise demonstrates.

In every instance of "I confront the evil wizard" played in the game what is really being said is "I have my character Geoffrey confront the evil wizard".  Its the same thing...the player who is real is directing the actions of the character who is not.  It is only a matter of presentation style that is different.

By this it is obvious that there IS metagame, even in the deepest immersive play.  So we are no longer looking at a dogmatic "Metagame vs. No Metagame"  instead we are looking at "Metagame yes...but how much".  Instead of a binary coice it is now a spectrum.  This is a very meaningful thing and it rests on the distinction I made above.  A clumsy distinction to use in everyday writing, but an important one to understand.


Simon:  I'm at a loss.  I no longer am even following you.  I've already stated that there is no denying of information going on.  I've already stated that the whole idea was one possible way of DELIVERING information to players not denying it do them.  You keep setting up this straw man of information denial.  

You ignored the question in the very text you quoted.  What are alternative delivery vehicles?

How many times can I list the 3 alternatives in one thread and have you completely igore them?  Go back, reread, address what's being said.

You're stuck in this broken record mode.

Let me outline it again one final time for you.

1) You either have players who are already intimately familiar with the setting and cultural differences or you have players who are not.

2) If the former, the whole discussion is over because there is no need to deliver information they already know.

3) If the latter then you either deliver the information to the players in advance of play or you deliver the information to the players during play.

4) If you deliver the information to them in advance of play then again we are done.  However, you previously had agreed that this was impractical to expect players to have to do reseach before beginning play.

5) If you then settle on delivering the information to them during play there are many ways to do so.  Mine was one.  You don't like it, Fine.  I've asked repeatedly for alternatives, you've come up with none.  I'm not really sure what your point is at this point.

6) The only other alternative to any of this is to simply not play.  If that is your solution, than you're in the wrong thread, because the very first post took as its assumption that exploring these differences was a desireable outcome.

Quote from: ValamirActually its very helpful.  True it would be clumsy to discuss it this way all the time.  But it is a profoundly helpful concept to understand.  When you say "My character does" what you are really saying (via shorthand) is "I have my character do"

The implication of this are quite profound.

Well, just to use your own logic here, this statement is patently false.  The character doesn't exist.  Therefore the player cannot have the character do anything, because the character simply doesn't exist.  Really what you are doing is just talking to the other players and GM.  Both the character and her actions are imaginary.  If I can refer to my character at all, surely I can refer to my character's actions.  

Quote from: ValamirOne ongoing theme that gets oft repeated like a mantra is how immersion requires the absence of metagame.  Its one of those dogmatic things that people now repeat without really thinking about it.  Ultimately it is proveable false as the above excercise demonstrates.

In every instance of "I confront the evil wizard" played in the game what is really being said is "I have my character Geoffrey confront the evil wizard". Its the same thing...
...
So we are no longer looking at a dogmatic "Metagame vs. No Metagame"  instead we are looking at "Metagame yes...but how much".  

I can't speak for whoever says that mantra, but it seems to me that you are again using an inconsistent definition of the word "metagame".  In one sense, the players and their actions are metagame.  Using this definition, there is always the same amount of metagame.  For example, "Bob, pass me the pizza" and "I confront the evil wizard" both are statements by the player containing five words.  They are both metagame events in the sense that a player is saying them.  

However, often people use a different sense of "metagame" -- which reflects the degree to which a statement refers to in-game vs out-of-game events.  In this sense, saying "Bob, pass me the pizza" is purely meta-game, since "Bob" "me" "pizza" and the act of passing all refer to out-of-game meanings.  The statement "I have my character Geoffrey confront the evil wizard" uses "I" to refer to the player.  Thus, it is partially metagame.  However, the statement "I confront the wizard" has no out-of-game referents, and thus is not at all metagame.  

Personally, though, what is more important for my immersion is the sense of the in-game being independent of the meta-game.  On rec.games.frp.advocacy, we expressed this as the definition of the World/Simulation corner of the Threefold -- the preference that in-game events not be influenced by meta-game issues.  For example, the GM might make only in-game statements about NPCs etc. -- but I can tell that he has caused some in-game events specifically for some emotional effect on me as a player (i.e. "hooking" me, for example).  

Quote from: Valamir(Re: conveying cultural information to the players) If you then settle on delivering the information to them during play there are many ways to do so.  Mine was one.  You don't like it, Fine.  I've asked repeatedly for alternatives, you've come up with none.  I'm not really sure what your point is at this point.  

OK, as I understand it, you were talking about the example case of an 11-year-old girl requesting sex with an older man (who is assumed to be the PC here).  Jack suggested that the GM should immediately tell the player at least in short form that there is no legal concept of age of consent, at the same time as he brings up the girl at all.  However, as I understand it, you suggested that the GM not do this but instead let the player play through the scene without such an explanation from the GM.  

Now, I have some sympathy for not blatantly stating the information up front.  An old adage is to "Show, don't tell".  However, it does have the criticism that you are holding information for later.  This is not "denying" information since it eventually does get conveyed, but it is  "withholding" information for later.

Quote from: John KimWell, just to use your own logic here, this statement is patently false.  The character doesn't exist.  Therefore the player cannot have the character do anything, because the character simply doesn't exist.  Really what you are doing is just talking to the other players and GM.  Both the character and her actions are imaginary.  If I can refer to my character at all, surely I can refer to my character's actions.  

You are correct.  What one is REALLY saying is "I am now currently imagining that my character is doing and I'd like you all to imagine it with me."

As was mentioned, its a clumsy turn of phrase and this makes it even clumsier, but you are absolutely right, I stopped short of going the full distance with that point.

Of course in practice "my character does" is much more convenient to say...but the above should be understood as what is actually being done.

Quote
I can't speak for whoever says that mantra, but it seems to me that you are again using an inconsistent definition of the word "metagame".  
...
However, the statement "I confront the wizard" has no out-of-game referents, and thus is not at all metagame.  

The point I wanted to make is that as soon as the actions of the character pass through the brain of an actual human being, meta game has been brought in.  The brain of the human who is controlling the character (or pedantically engaging in group imagination of the character as above) exists outside the game.  Your brain, my brain, is all outside of the imaginary space known as "the game".  Using our brains then automatically requires bringing the out of game into the game.

I know this sounds somewhat tautalogical, but it really does have some important implications.

Its recognizing that there is no possible way to leave all of the baggage of real life and your own life experiences at the door no matter how "in character" one is trying to be.  Your own life is going to color your portrayal of that character, and in so much as your own life involves out of game beliefs, preferences, and areas of knowledge, your portrayal will be "contaminated" (if you wish) by this "meta-game".

The important realization here is that there is no switch of Meta vs. Non Meta.  EVERYTHING becomes meta, and now the only question is "how much" rather than "either or".

QuotePersonally, though, what is more important for my immersion is the sense of the in-game being independent of the meta-game.  On rec.games.frp.advocacy, we expressed this as the definition of the World/Simulation corner of the Threefold -- the preference that in-game events not be influenced by meta-game issues.

And my belief is that this is completely impossible to actually achieve.  "independent of" and "not be influenced by" are unobtainable ideals.  Once one sets aside the idea that this holy grail is achievable, one can get past it and start to examine the IMO much more productive question of "Given that 0 Metagame is impossible, how much is acceptable"

Quote
For example, the GM might make only in-game statements about NPCs etc. -- but I can tell that he has caused some in-game events specifically for some emotional effect on me as a player (i.e. "hooking" me, for example).

I can't parse here whether you're saying that what the GM is doing here you consider to be metagame or not.  I would say that it is.  

Quote
OK, as I understand it, you were talking about the example case of an 11-year-old girl requesting sex with an older man (who is assumed to be the PC here).  Jack suggested that the GM should immediately tell the player at least in short form that there is no legal concept of age of consent, at the same time as he brings up the girl at all.  However, as I understand it, you suggested that the GM not do this but instead let the player play through the scene without such an explanation from the GM.  

Now, I have some sympathy for not blatantly stating the information up front.  An old adage is to "Show, don't tell".  However, it does have the criticism that you are holding information for later.  This is not "denying" information since it eventually does get conveyed, but it is  "withholding" information for later.

Quite so.  I believe it was Jack that brought up this alternative, and in my answer to him I gave my reasons for thinking it less powerful (not invalid by any means...but less of a "hit between the eyes with the realization of what is being said" moment.

It is the power of that moment that I wanted to preserve even if this clashes with the "purity" of the Verisimilitude.

I did, you will note, make a point to say that this information is not being withheld to embarrass the character or serve as a GM "gotcha".  I was quite explicit about that.  The status of and perceptions about the PC within the game world should not be effected.  This is a scene apecifically engineered to make the PLAYER feel it, and once that is delivered to good effect it is not something to then be held against the character as some sort of faus pax that will come back to haunt them.

This is very clearly a meta game delivery, and it is this that then led into the following discussion on player vs character.  If one believes in the holy grail that 0 metagame is achieved than one may be inclined to dismiss such a delivery completely out of hand ("oh, I smell a hint of meta game, can't use it").

If on the other hand one realizes that 0 metagame is impossible and that ALL games, even the most immersive are going to contain some metagame influence...THEN one is better equipped to evaluate whether this particular deliver is an effective on or not and decide whether the potential powerful impact of the scene is or isn't worth increasing the metagame from non 0 to slightly higher than non 0.

In other words, increasing the metagame from non 0 to slightly higher than non 0 psychologically is less of a barrier than the perception of increasing the metagame from 0 to non 0.  Its easier to swallow because no imaginary barrier has been crossed.

Quote from: ValamirIts recognizing that there is no possible way to leave all of the baggage of real life and your own life experiences at the door no matter how "in character" one is trying to be.  Your own life is going to color your portrayal of that character, and in so much as your own life involves out of game beliefs, preferences, and areas of knowledge, your portrayal will be "contaminated" (if you wish) by this "meta-game".
....
"independent of" and "not be influenced by" are unobtainable ideals.  Once one sets aside the idea that this holy grail is achievable, one can get past it and start to examine the IMO much more productive question of "Given that zero Metagame is impossible, how much is acceptable"  

What is wrong with trying for an ideal?  I mean, I know that the stories of my games are never going to be as finely crafted as, say, Shakespeare -- but does that mean it is unproductive to try to make them better?  Personally, I think it is good to have a goal that is outside of reach, rather than trying to lower the bar so that whatever you are doing is defined as "good enough".  

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: John KimFor example, the GM might make only in-game statements about NPCs etc. -- but I can tell that he has caused some in-game events specifically for some emotional effect on me as a player (i.e. "hooking" me, for example).  

I can't parse here whether you're saying that what the GM is doing here you consider to be metagame or not.  I would say that it is.  

Correct.  The GM causing a "hook" for my character is a metagame influence, and I tend to dislike this as a player.  I don't think that there is anything wrong with it in an absolute sense, and I am capable of having a good time in such a game, but it isn't my ideal.  

Quote from: Valamir(Re: withholding information on attitudes towards sex with children)  I believe it was Jack that brought up this alternative, and in my answer to him I gave my reasons for thinking it less powerful (not invalid by any means...but less of a "hit between the eyes with the realization of what is being said" moment.

It is the power of that moment that I wanted to preserve even if this clashes with the "purity" of the Verisimilitude.
....
If on the other hand one realizes that zero metagame is impossible and that ALL games, even the most immersive are going to contain some metagame influence...THEN one is better equipped to evaluate whether this particular deliver is an effective on or not and decide whether the potential powerful impact of the scene is or isn't worth increasing the metagame from non zero to slightly higher than non zero.

Well, sure, but it can still be a simple question.  If you value lack-of-metagame-influence and don't particularly value hit-between-the-eyes, then clearly the device isn't worth it.  On the other hand, if what you are really trying for is the hit-between-the-eyes, then it may be worth it.  

I'm a little doubtful about trying for hit-between-the-eyes, though, simply because I've never seen it work personally.  Do you have any experiences to share about getting it to work?