Group social dynamics similarity to sexual social dynamics?

[sirogit]

It's been floating around in my head for awhile that many of the game groups, paticularly ones which emphasis social basis rather than creative, operate in social dynamics similar to sexual social dynamics. But the only good examples I can think of supporting the theory are rather negative cases, which leads me to think that possibly that the model only works to describe dysfunctional gaming groups?

Example: I know when a run a game, it's a very personal, intense thing, which usually means that I'm going to learn a lot more about the players that normal social situations. Sometimes I'll think someone is really cool, so I'll run a game with them, and discover some aspects of their personality that I don't really care for, so after we 'break up', I have less admiration for them as a friend.

Knowing this, I consider if I really want to learn that sort of stuff about a person before I invite them to my game, because I might like to have a more assuredly-pleasant surface-level relationship with that person by not gaming with them. I know several people who take the same approach to sexual relationships(Though I've never taken that approach to sexual relationships.)

Another example is the whole dependancy issue... alot of the reasons that people won't leave a bad groups, because they've been in it forever, because they used to have so much fun, because we all know the same people, because they'll be hurt, because I don't know anyone else, because I don't want to be alone... have similar phenenom in sexual relationships.

I'm thinking I might be re-inventing the wheel with this discussion, but I'd like to focus on the fact that all of the resemblences seem to be very negative, can someone else think of positive resemblances?

[lumpley]

Sure!  Sometimes you get to know a fellow gamer better through the intimacy of an intense game, and you like him or her more than ever!

-Vincent

[Callan S.]

Excuuse my free association.

I see that address of premise is a deep way of exploring character. What would a PC do for love, what would he put first, beliefs or his country? Etc.

In terms of players: Now regardless of what creative agenda your playing in and regardless of the fact that the SIS just isn't real, your essentially having other players address a premise themselves. Not their PC, THEM. They could try and shrug it off as being 'in character', but really, they chose that characters persona to begin with so it still sticks. And through the insight that gives, learning about them.

Even outside of SIS entanglements, some of the effort required in RP is sort of a premise, albiet quite domestic, to address.

That's what I'm getting from this post. Am I way off?

[Callan S.]

I'd really appreciate an answer on this one. It's a new view to me on what makes roleplay fun and I'd really like feedback, because I'm wondering it its powerfully important.

Is one way of getting a lot of enjoyment of out roleplay to express who you are by making descisions in powerful conflicts, which you wouldn't experience in RL (hopefully) and never get to express yourself by the way you address the moment?

[Ben O'Neal]

Is one way of getting a lot of enjoyment of out roleplay to express who you are by making descisions in powerful conflicts, which you wouldn't experience in RL (hopefully) and never get to express yourself by the way you address the moment?

One way? Definately. The only way? Not at all.

Some of the coolest things I've done in roleplaying games have been things which I myself could do, but never would simply because of the real-life consequences and costs to myself (ok, and because the situations would never arise in RL). I've devoted a good portion of my character's wealth to helping out a poor family, but in real life, I would suffer tremendously from doing that. I've taken on and killed pirates smuggling humans, stealing their shit while I'm at it, but in real life, I would never stand alone against a powerful criminal organisation.

Then there's the cool shit you can do that cannot ever be done in real life, like flying giant falcons and conducting dive-bomb raids on unsuspecting pirate ships. Hehe, that was awesome, especially the parts where we grabbed crewmembers and flung them from huge heights onto the ship. Hehehehe.

But yeah, I think using your character as a literal avatar of yourself to do things you wouldn't do in real life is quite a fun and valid way to roleplay. But this isn't exactly breaking news now is it?

Now the question as to whether or not what a character does can reasonably be assumed to reflect the player's internal reality is quite a different one. I think such an assumption is quite a jump. It's very much like assuming that Jim Carey is a crazy toon in real life just because of his roles in most of his movies. He might be, but it's unlikely. Assuming that Angelina Jolie is a gun-toting heartless thief in RL just because of her Tomb Raider roles is quite unrealistic IMHO. Just because Uma Thurman kills hundreds of guys in Kill Bill doesn't suggest to me that she harbours a hatred of men in real life, nor a desire to kill anybody. She might, but I don't assume that her character can be used to reflect her real self.

-Ben

[Bankuei]

Hi sirogit,

Let's look at this in a very fundamental fashion;  any human interaction is based on a set of expectations and a role in a given relationship.  The requirements and rules between you and a checkout cashier are very different than the ones between you and your mother, etc.  Dysfunction is a result when those boundaries are violated on a regular basis, regardless of being a misunderstanding or intentional.

The reason that most of us can identify negative issues regarding both game groups and relationships is that pretty much everyone has experienced dysfunctional interactions, few have experienced functional ones.

When we're talking specifically about gaming, there are two correlations that tie in heavily with sexual relationships.  

First, is the issue of dominance and power.  You'll notice for many dysfunctional groups that the problem is classic Alpha Male Syndrome, thinly veiled under arguments of rules, role vs. roll playing, etc.  What people are arguing about is who is dominant, although its usually played out in the area of Credibility and Power.  This is usually worsened with many texts advice for The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast AND not discussing metagame(aka Social Contract) issues.

Second, codependency is a result when one or more parties are either unclear about what the nature of the relationship is, regardless of whether its simple misperception or out and out deception.  The misguided parties will keep trying to squeeze water from a rock, and hang out expecting "things to change, one day".

Many gamers expect friendship to magically form through long-term play, and closed, tight knit groups, the expected norm of many game texts.  In actuality, some people simply will never get along, and others may be civil, but won't become real friends ever, and everyone involved could be generally cool people.  Again, advising folks not to lay things on the table is also a great way to keep the miscommunication going.

Now, if we're talking about functional play, or functional relationships, then we're talking about the same things:

-Everyone present likes each other enough to WANT to spend time together
-Everything relevant is in the open and out on the table, communication
-Everyone is willing to work together in good faith, with patience
-Everyone is very clear about their boundaries, and if those can't fit together, to simply say, "You go your way, I'll go mine" without getting caught up in battling for dominance, resentment, and anger("Who's right?", "Payback time!", etc.)

There is no way to know "everything" you need to know about someone before getting involved with them.  What you CAN do, is have clear boundaries about what you want and don't want, and look closely for signs and red flags to let you know if this person is going to be able to respect those boundaries and fulfill the relationship you are forming, regardless of what they say or believe.

Chris

[sirogit]

Ravien and noon - I have absolutely no idea on how what you were saying, as intereasting as it was, was relevant to my post. This makes me worried I'm insane or stupid. I'll look it over after some sleep.

Vincent - That's a very good positive example. Makes me feel warm.

Bankuei - I would suggest that there are other significant resemblances, including the fact that there's this relationship between the people that's based on this kind of performance that's done for the particpiant's pleasure. I think that may be the fundamental reason that the metaphor makes sense to me, but I'm still brewing this over in my mind.

[Callan S.]

Hi Sirogit,

Example: I know when a run a game, it's a very personal, intense thing, which usually means that I'm going to learn a lot more about the players that normal social situations.

Possibly you were just talking about meta game behavious, I'm talking about both. Character choices reflect something about that player...something you just wouldn't find out in reality because make or break sitations are unlikely to ever come up. Likewise, how these people handle themselves in a group activity where people are supposed to be somewhat equal/many other considerations, tells everyone else a lot about them.

Personal expression is a powerful and enjoyable thing to achieve and that's what I'm talking about, it being perhaps a very important part of what makes roleplay not only fun but very different from many other games.

Well, maybe I'm dressing it up a little at the end there, but read past the hype and you get what I mean.

[Doctor Xero]

I know when a run a game, it's a very personal, intense thing, which usually means that I'm going to learn a lot more about the players that normal social situations.

I agree with you overall, but I think you will find that a lot of people will disagree with you for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of your thesis.

The difficulty I perceive is that there are a number of different approachs to roleplaying gaming, with differing levels of investment and internal involvement on the part of the player.  And many people, including one or maybe two who have posted on this topic, may assume that their approach is the only approach or the default approach.

There are people who game primarily because their friends do (what Aaron Allston calls the 'Buddy' player).  They will be no more involved in their gaming personae than they would be involved in their bishops and castles in their chess games.  Thus, your thesis will not apply to them.

There are people who game for a chance to show off their skills at gaming, focusing more on showing how "bad-ass" they can be.  They will treat their gaming personae as little more than their window into the game, not unlike the "persona" in a first-person shooter computer game.  Your thesis will not apply to them beyond showing that they may have moments of testosterone bluster.  (However, some of these people spend vast amounts of out-of-game time bragging about their gaming and focus on their gaming as a ready ego boost, to the exclusion of school studies or dating or hygiene -- in some circles this focus on gaming as nothing but a constant source of surrogate accomplishment is known as "nerd machismo". )

There are people who game for catharsis, as a means of letting off steam and venting all those socially unacceptable nasty impulses they have, enjoying raping and murdering and cannibalistically devouring live the various faceless and "thingified" NPCs.  Such people may be annoyed if you face them with Real World legal consequences and will almost always be annoyed if you face them with Real World ethical consequences or ruin their fun by making the NPCs human enough to become victims instead of punching bags and empty scapegoats.

If they are psychologically healthy, they don't dare become too involved in their gaming personae lest the horrible things they do to let off steam become genuinely real to them (and therefore potentially guilt-inducing).  They may, however, become quite fond of their gaming personae, in the same way that a boxer may become fond of his punching bag or his gloves.  I suspect at least one of your posters approaches some games in this fashion, but I may be wrong.  Your thesis might apply to them in that it will give you insights into their darkest fantasies and their crueler sides, but it probably won't tell you much about how willing they would be to commit such atrocities in Real Life -- remember, for most of them, it is critical that the victimized NPCs have little reality to them and therefore are not representative of real humans but instead remain merely focuses for their aggression and nastier impulses.

(And remember that most people don't think of the nameless faceless NPCs as truly representative of real humans, just as no one worries about the nameless faceless flunkies who die when the spy base is blown up in a James Bond film.)

There are people who game as an intellectual exercise, trying to examine various approaches to life through gaming as a simulation laboratory, often trying to play out successfully a figure of a different race or gender or ethical make-up.  They may or may become involved in their gaming personae, depending upon other factors, and therefore your thesis may or may not apply to them.

There are people who game as many actors act, trying to replicate the "script" of the genre of the campaign, which means in a comedy they play clumsy characters perhaps, but in a gothic thriller they play psychopaths maybe, while in a superhero campaign they play superpowered philanthropists possibly.  Their involvement with their gaming personae will be filtered through their awareness of the "script", and therefore your thesis will have limited application to them.

Finally, there are people who game in the same way that many writers write, expressing parts of themselves through their more involved and invested player-characters.  Their gaming personae may be like second selves or manifested personal archetypes, just as for many writers the characters in their stories are like second selves or manifested personal archetypes.  For these people, yes, your theory applies as you can get a good insight into them through their characters, but remember that their personae will be moderated according to the campaign style, genre, and their perceptions of their fellow players and game master(s).

I hope this helps you parse through the diverse responses you have gotten and will be getting apropos this topic.

Doctor Xero