Exploring the relationship between character and player

[Trish2]

Hey guys,

In my IRC Trek game, our characters are playing in a holonovel. Part of play for this group is to write a "log" of your character's experience of the session. Because of the nature of this forum, I thought I would share this example of actual play. I thought it might make for some interesting discussion.

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

Syrna returned to her quarters and again sat down at the window seat to watch the stars as they flew by at speeds faster than light. She reflected on the holo-novel that the Captain was doing to pass some of the time with the crew. As a scientist there were a number of things that interested her... but engaging in a frivolous past time as playing in a holo-novel was not one of them.

It made no sense to her to be someone she was not. She was Syrna of Vulcan, not Alexandra Sevastopol, a daughter of Russian farmers who was seeking her fortune on the Spanish main in the eighteen hundreds on Earth. She wondered if there would be any benefit or gain from such a pursuit such as roleplaying.

"Computer," Syrna said, "tell me about roleplaying."

"Role-play-ing," the computer replied, "In Psychology, it is used as a therapeutic technique, designed to reduce conflict in social situations, in which participants act out particular behavioral roles in order to expand their awareness of differing points of view."

The computer continued, "It can also be an instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role."

Unseen by the computer, Syrna nodded and considered. Acts of play often times prepared one for future acts. This was easily seen in the behavior of animals, such as sehlats. Young sehlats for example, would play hide and seek with each other as cubs, perfecting their predatory skills long before needing to go on an actual hunt.

A similar method was employed by using training on the holodecks, putting cadets and people into situations to prepare them for real ones later. But a holo-novel using antiquated equipment? What did this prepare her for? Perhaps if she found herself in a situation, trapped on a boat on the high seas, with nothing but a sword... how often would that happen?

Not often she supposed, but Syrna decided it might be better if she were prepared for the use of a weapon such as a sword because who knew when she'd need it. Both the Captain and Doctor Llewellyn seemed far more proficient with the usage of such ancient weapons. They had even seemingly taken pleasure in employing their usage in the violent world of the pirate.

Was something wrong with her that she could not let go and simply enjoy a brief moment of primative and savage release? Her mind went back to the moment she had experienced Pon Farr and when she and D'von had finally mated, the primalness and savagery that had waited years for expression had finally come out.

That was the problem. The savage that lurked inside the Vulcan yearned for expression. It was the same part of the Vulcan soul that made the Romulans so ruthless and it frightened her (like it did most Vulcans) to let go of that fury and to truly know what depth of ferocity she was capable of.

She could conceivably, play the role of a pirate and let it out... giving herself permission to express her anger and violence through the excuse of playing a role. But no... she'd know the terrible truth even if no one else did. It was her... and the darker side of her nature.

In this fantastic and amazing world of roleplaying, she wondered where did the character end and she begin? In order to play a role, one must be able to relate to it on some level, come to terms with it and understand it. In the very definition of Roleplaying given to her by the computer, it mentioned 'expanding the awareness' and of 'different points of view'.

This was probably similar to the concept of putting one's self in another's shoes that the humans talked about. That saying which meant that for a moment, try to see the world with different eyes. Eyes other than your own, but yet... it comes back to the fact that they are your own. What then was the difference?

Syrna hearkened back to a saying from the scrolls of Surak, "The outcome of our actions is entirely out of our control. Only intent remains entirely within our control." The difference in her mind, as she saw it, was intent.

Was it Syrna's intent to have an excuse to express the rage and the emotions within or was it her intent to take this opportunity to understand the world from a different perspective? To see the situation in its infinite combinations and infinite diversity? What was her intent when it came to this thing they called roleplaying?

If there was one thing that Syrna was, it was a scientist. She pondered the questions of the universe and sought answers. As such, she decided it would be wrong to limit her perspective. "Let me understand, with new eyes," she said softly to herself. And while it might be difficult for her to express the emotions of Alexandra Sevastapol, tomorrow on the holodeck, she'd truly give the idea of seeing the world through the eyes of a character -- a person someone other than herself -- a try.

[Trish2]

If this post needs to be moved to a different place based on what I say below, please do so.

Since no one has responded to my implied question here... I thought I'd start a discussion with my thoughts on the relationship between character and player. Maybe its been done before here in the Forge and being relatively new, I just don't know about it. But here goes...

I have been giving the nature of the relationship of character to player a good deal of thought and I've not really come up with any answers. Perhaps because it is so very varied.

Some players use their characters as an extention of themselves. Imagine what it might be like to be in the situtation of their characters and they are essentially playing themselves... with their own moral code, judgements and so forth. Some people I know try to play something that is opposite of who they are. Some guys try to play women so that they can "be different" from themselves because that is what they think roleplaying is about -- being someone other than themself. I think it can be all these things... and yet more.

Last night I was talking with my husband as we often do before going to sleep. I asked him: Do your characters ever do things that surprise you?

He said: No. That's because I control them.

Me on the other hand, I find that my characters do surprise me from time to time. That if I try to write something for the character that they sometimes refuse to fit into the mold I want to put them into or even the action that I want them to do.  I find this to also be true in my fiction writing - that the characters speak to me - and in a way, live inside of me (and my imagination) as individuals - (mostly) seperate from myself. I admit that there's a part of me that dwells within them and there's a part of them that dwells within me. I think this is neat.

He said: That's a little creepy.

I then explained that when I write for a character I try to get into their head. Act as they would act, think as they would think almost like a method actor. When writing a scene, I consider the characters and their goals and what points the characters would want to get across.

An example of this might be when writing a piece where two characters are in conflict with each other. I find that I think about what each character's agenda is, what their goals are and what they'd do to accomplish them. Then as the characters interact I switch viewpoints between them depending on which one I am writing for in a given paragraph.

Now, as a writer, part of me would watch this process unfold and have no clue as to who would get to achieve their goals or not. It was quite an interesting phenomenon to watch from an objective standpoint.

This has brought me to the conclusion that I seem to use roleplaying as a means to explore the nature of the human condition and to explore myself and my own thoughts and feelings on a given situation.

I'm not saying any particular way or relation to one's characters is right or wrong.

There are times when I know that there are aspects of my personality that I cannot seem to shake from the characters I make. An example would be: I am an emotional risk taker. All of my characters seem to have this quality. It's almost like I don't know how else to be.

Another person I know tends to play his characters as shy when around girls his character likes -- and he too happens to be that way. I don't think its due to bad roleplaying -- but then -- what is it? Why is it? How is it that a character can be a whole person unto themselves and yet be part of us? Does anyone else experience this relatablity to character that I do?

I know I am not my character(s) but yet, there's part of me in them... that gives them life and yet is seperate from me... and I can learn from them and their experiences. Grow as a person myself, by thinking about the situations they are put into... so I ask, where do we end and our characters begin?

[contracycle]

Actually, the thing I find weirdest is that we can conceptualise characters at all.  Every now and then, when reading a novel, I am struck by the fact that I am reading of at least 5 or 6 fairly realised people, and yet their observed mentalities emerge from one mind.  Surely, we as humans cannot wholly simulate another mind and call its complexities, let alone multitudes... so what then are we representing?  A summary?  A behavioural precis?  And if the precis is then apreciated as accurate by an observer, does that not imply that passing as human is a lot easier than being human.

I'm definately in the experimental camp of player identification, which is to say, the character is a verhicle for exploring modes of thought I would otherwise not entertain seriously.  A sort of glorified thought experiment into what it would be like to perceive the world from a perspective I find unusual or relatively alien.

[James_Nostack]

In a recent game of The Shadow of Yesterday I had one of those "surprise" moments you mentioned.

My little wizard dude took a huge risk to rescue a stranger from certain death.  Although he succeeded, every one of his magical spells failed.  This was disappointing to me as a player, but when I dipped in to roleplay the character's reactions I realized, "This guy is absolutely devastated: he's devoted his life to this magic stuff, and he's a flop."  

These sorts of realizations are facilitated by TSOY's Keys; essentially, you gain experience by undergoing painful personal growth.  This is a good example of a character abandoning a Key--in this case, the Key of undertaking a particular magical quest.  But it's precisely this Key that made me want to play this character to begin with.

So--there's this fictional character who probably ought to evolve, yet as the creative force behind that character I have to admit such a change would upset me.  Somehow I've created a character who is a little too real--he's headed in a direction I don't want him to go, and while I could rein him in that would feel really untruthful.

[Larry L.]

Hi Trish,

So what kinds of things are actually occurring during your IRC play sessions? I'm not really getting a sense of how much of this is collaborative process vs. "solitaire play." Does what goes into your log feed back into play? And I'm always curious what sorts of things people are doing to get satisfying play through IRC. Is this a freeform game or something else? How well do you know the other players in real life?

[Trish2]

In the IRC game, the group is led by a "Ship Manager" basically the GM and he or she has final say as to what happens. The IRC group meets every week on monday nights at 8pm Pacific time, but there are roughly 30 IRC ships/stations in the over all organization of Star Trek: A Call To Duty each with their own times.

The SM plays some NPCs or gets other players to play NPCs and tells the NPCs their roles and so forth. The system is more freeform... but arbitrated by the SM. So... I can say something like:

::wonders what the sneaky Romulan Captain is up to::

and he has no control over that...  but if I do:

::scans for cloaked romulan vessels::

He would whisper to me the apparent success or failure of my attempt. Then it would be up to me to respond with something like the following:

::almost frowns at finding nothing:: CO: Thus far I have detected no romulan vessels... however that does not mean they are not out there.

So its a lot like FTF without a set rules system...all governed by the SM.

The log that I wrote up above is based off a session we played. Part of the participation requirement in ST:ACTD's IRC division of play is to submit a weekly character log to the ships email string and post it to the ship's bbs...

"Captain's log.... blah blah date... I met this really hot alien babe... "

Often times a log is a summary of what happened in the mission (that week's hour long session) from the character's perspective.

In the past I have known some of these people that I have played with IRL really well... and some I have not. Some have become good friend over the years of playing with them... it all depends on the individuals. Some I met at the annual convention... so... but I always think its nice to make new friends... even if I'll never meet them in real life... like my buddy Dominic from Germany. We IM all the time and are good friends. Even though he's an Internet friend... he's still a true one :) and I am glad to have him in my life.

Hope that answers your questions.

[TonyLB]

Well, I honestly don't get the dichotomy.  I completely control the character.  Sometimes the things I choose to do with the character surprise the hell out of me.

These two things would be hard to reconcile if I didn't constantly make other choices in my life that also surprise the hell out of me.  We're surprising creatures, we humans.  Vulcans too.

Games can be a vehicle for self-discovery.  Things you discover (i.e. you did not know were there before you set out) are likely to be surprising, or at least unexpected.  If you find that you're only discovering the expected, the routine, then either (a) you're not exploring hard enough or (b) you're a genuinely boring person.  Not that there's anything wrong with either of those things.

[Darren Hill]

Actually, the thing I find weirdest is that we can conceptualise characters at all.  

Isn't this just a simple matter of having empathy? You don't have to think exactly like other people to be able to imagine how they might think.
Or maybe you do - but being human, we're a lot more alike than people generally acknowledge. Differences in background, sex, culture and all that stuff are fairly minor compared the shared experience of being human.

[contracycle]

Isn't this just a simple matter of having empathy? You don't have to think exactly like other people to be able to imagine how they might think.
Or maybe you do - but being human, we're a lot more alike than people generally acknowledge. Differences in background, sex, culture and all that stuff are fairly minor compared the shared experience of being human.

Sure it may just be empathy, but I still find it kinda weird.

My understanding is that we actually have a bit of brain that does nothing other than create a sort of mirror model of other peoples thoughts, and we use this to predict what people will do.  And yes I certainly agree that this is a normal part of being human, but its one I find quite fascinating and complex, arguably all the more so becuase we do it so easily and automatically.

[Trish2]

Well, I honestly don't get the dichotomy.  I completely control the character.  Sometimes the things I choose to do with the character surprise the hell out of me.

I've been trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into words over this... so please bear with me.

Perhaps the difference is the moment of surprise.

I understand that ultimately I have control over the character. I am responsible for his or her actions and I won't duck out on that responsiblity. However there are times when being true to the nature of the character, one feels almost compelled to act in a specific way.

An example of this was my very own husband... he was playing a Klingon and he felt that the XO was taking a cowardly course of action. He found himself in a bit of a quandry... he knew that confronting the XO was what he had to do in order to be true to his character -- and that would cause major problems. Even potential player to player problems that he did not want. Still he chose this course of action because he felt he needed to be true to what the character would do.

Maybe for me... I am not that far removed...

Sure there are times that I understand: OK I need to have my character make this decision in this way... now how do I go about manipulating the thought processes in order to come to this decision as the right one. Is that then the Author stance?

Then there are times when the character almost seems like another person, that I am not making choices for him or her  -- in those moments perhaps would that be more of an Actor stance? Thinking like that person would -- and yet there's another part of me that is surprised... as if the character did something unexpected.

Is maybe one point of surprise just a bit earlier in the thought process than the other so it seems like a character decision rather than a player decision? Ultimately I acknowledge that I do make the choice for the character... just some player choices are harder to rationalize to the character ;)

[Trish2]

My understanding is that we actually have a bit of brain that does nothing other than create a sort of mirror model of other peoples thoughts, and we use this to predict what people will do.  And yes I certainly agree that this is a normal part of being human, but its one I find quite fascinating and complex, arguably all the more so becuase we do it so easily and automatically.

I believe that we developed this part of our natures to help ensure our suvival. Its part of the pattern recognition that has made us successful as a species. And yeah... that's still pretty dang cool when you think about it.

[Masada]

Facinating...

I think what you might have tapped in to that you find surprising is another schema for life.  We get very used to our ideas of the world.  We take comfort in understanding where we fit and how things work.  But when you roleplay the idea is to take yourself out of your view and consider another.  Depending on the player, this can be minor or major.  What I think you (trish) have discovered is a deep immersion.  You're are always you.  But when playing you really take on the thoughts and feeling of the character.  You're in control, but you've allowed your schema to change.  Obviously we don't all think the same way.  Sometimes I'm surprised by even what my close friends say and do.  They have a different view from mine.  

Some of my characters are extensions of me.  But some are different people with a different view.  When I really tap in to them, I am often surprised.  They think differently than I do.  It makes you question a little bit who you are and why...

[Trish2]

Thanks Masada :) I appreciate your kind words.