Casanova, homosexuality and underage sex

[Jack Aidley]

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.

[simon_hibbs]

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.

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

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Valamir]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[John Kim]

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.

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.  

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...
...
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).  

(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.

[Valamir]

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.  

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.

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".

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.

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"

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.  

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.

[John Kim]

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".
....
"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".  

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.  

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.  

(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?