Effects of One True Way on roleplaying experience

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Correction: "Strongly focused by the participants' shared vision of play." All a designer can do is provide tools and inspiration for that maybe to happen.

Incidentally, years of moderating this site leads me to say, Raven and Marco, please consider dropping whatever is prompting this quick debate. You two do not mix well.

On the other hand, feel free to prove me wrong; no one would be happier than me if you did.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

I read this and I wondered if you were one of the people who understood a player protesting "My character wouldn't do that!" (which some people here think is a completely legitimate/logical way of communicating) or if you were one of the people here who I'd read as saying they didn't understand that sentiment or thought it was an illogical statement.

Honestly, Marco, I see the "My character wouldn't do that!" statement as shorthand for "I wouldn't have my character do that!" However, not everyone who uses the former statement realizes that it actually means the latter (or rather, the full implications thereof), which is why it is also illogical (or amusing).

I agree with that. If someone hasn't thought about it deeply, I'm okay with that too (I wouldn't laugh at them: There've been times in my life I've made a decision I haven't thought about too deeply. I wouldn't recommend it, but I know what that's like).

The statement isn't based on some bizarre psychological condition where they believe the character to be another real person they have no control over. But it's as valid and meaningful (if not, perhaps,  as clearly stated) as your objection to warping the authrian mythos with a walk-in character from another reality.

I actually think your discussion of looking at the ramefications and analyzing the real meaning behind a statement (the player is not insane, but instead has valid reasons not to want his character to take a course of action) that, at least, strikes many people as an illogical assertation is a (the?) powerful antidote to one-true-wayism.

-Marco

[Doctor Xero]

Honestly, Marco, I see the "My character wouldn't do that!" statement as shorthand for "I wouldn't have my character do that!" However, not everyone who uses the former statement realizes that it actually means the latter (or rather, the full implications thereof), which is why it is also illogical (or amusing).

I would have to disagree with you on this one greyorm.

In writing, many writers experience a simulated schizophrenia (actually a simulated multiple personality state) in which characters take on their own secondary independence of a sort.  In improvisational acting and in method acting, a similar simulated secondary independence occurs, in which a coherent secondary persona evolves.   The same sort of thing may occur for roleplaying gamers who utilize actor mode -- if such is what they want.

This phenomenon is why it is possible for psychotherapists to use archetypal analysis as a successful means of counseling.

In such situations, stating while in character mindset "I would not do that!" is NOT equal to saying that the player would not have his or her character do that.  It is precisely what it means : the player has achieved for that character a secondary persona with its own independence of sorts, just as method actors and certain writers do.

I have no idea whether you have ever encountered those sorts of gamers.  They are common in my gaming groups, but almost every gamer in my groups has been either an artist or an actor, so my gaming group is not the norm.  Also, they may not be as common in some areas because gamers who enjoy such simulated multiple personality gaming often clash with gamers who despise it or who deny it can occur (by ignoring or discounting all the pertinent psychological studies of artists and archetypal analysis), so you may not have encountered such gamers.

Doctor Xero

[Marco]

In writing, many writers expend a simulated schizophrenia (actually a simulated multiple personality state) in which characters take on their own secondary independence of a sort.  In improvisational acting and in method acting, a similar simulated secondary independence occurs, in which a fully coherent secondary persona evolves.   The same sort of thing may occur for roleplaying gamers who utilize actor mode -- if such is what they want.

Doctor Xero

I would draw a distinction between a heavily immersed person and actual schizophrenia (or MPD). I have full sympathies for someone who says "my character wouldn't do that" and means it in the sense that "I envision/experience my character as a real person who wouldn't take that course of action."

But I think there's a very strong distinction between that internal identification and actually experiencing the character a real, secondary persona that the person is consciously aware of but literally has no control over. I've never experienced that.

I have heard that some actors when, for example, playing angry characters, bring their own anger up and project it and, in fact, are for all practical purposes "really angry" (just as their character is).

But, again, I think this is markedly distinct from either schizophrenia (loss of touch with reality) or MPD (multiple personality disorder). I say that having only minimal experience with both--but, although, minimal, having had the actual experience (dealing with people experiencing those mental states--one of whom was a gamer friend of mine and is now deceased).

Ultimately the words "My character does that" could come out of the mouth of any self-possessed gamer. I think the statement means that doing so would shatter the SiS as surely as warping the Arthurian mythos to allow dimensional travelers.

(All IMO/IME).
-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'm on record as acknowledging that this phenomenon which you're describing does exist, DX. The issue is not whether it happens; the issue is whether the "character construct" is to be taken seriously as responsible for itself in any way, shape, or form, among us as people.

When folks say "the character does not exist," they are referring to the responsibility of the actual human. It doesn't matter how playing the character feels to the actual human, from their perspective. Sure, it feels like the character is moving and speaking on its own, and it might even be intrinsic to the person's enjoyment to buy into that sensation while it happens.

But in instances of dispute, or necessary negotiation, about the SIS, then the question becomes, how much value does that feeling have in that negotiation? Many folks have chosen to state, "none." This prompts any amount of resentment.

I suggest that calling the real person's responsibility into focus actually shares a great deal with the kind of psychotherapy you're referencing, vis a vis the actual goal of such therapy - for the real person to discover what he or she is really about. Without that goal, such therapy isn't therapy at all, but rather a form of addiction and, in my view, irresponsibility on the part of the therapist.

You might enjoy some older threads with dialogue between me and Jim Henley (Supplanter) about this issue, which a quick search will turn up. It includes phrases of mine that you'll especially like, such as "go back to your planet or stay here and make sense." You can call it bias; I call it mental health.

Marco, I perceive a person who's not mentally unhealthy but still using that phrase to be either using code for plain old "no, I want it that way" in a healthy sense (which is where you're coming from in your post, I think) or dodging responsibility during negotiation. Neither is schizophrenia, but the latter is socially and creatively aggravating to deal with.

Best,
Ron

[Green]

I don't want to seem like a control freak or anything, but I believe the thread is wandering slightly from the original topic.

[Marco]

Marco, I perceive a person who's not mentally unhealthy but still using that phrase to be either using code for plain old "no, I want it that way" in a healthy sense (which is where you're coming from in your post, I think) or dodging responsibility during negotiation. Neither is schizophrenia, but the latter is socially and creatively aggravating to deal with.

Best,
Ron

Yes--agreement. I have a post that's more suited to Actual Play. I'm puttin' it there. I agree with this with the note that I think the argument is taking the rap when really it's the player that's being annoying. The fact that under some POV's the argument is "right" is, IMO, probably responsible for the argument being dispised (I think players have a "right" to expect the GM to work with them when playing their characters--that's what my post is about).

-Marco

[neelk]

Marco, I perceive a person who's not mentally unhealthy but still using that phrase to be either using code for plain old "no, I want it that way" in a healthy sense (which is where you're coming from in your post, I think) or dodging responsibility during negotiation. Neither is schizophrenia, but the latter is socially and creatively aggravating to deal with.

I hope this isn't a threadjack, but that's not how I use "my character wouldn't do that".

I think characters are real, in the same way that the state of Arizona, the Pythagorean theorem, or theme are. That is, all of them are imaginary constructs with a degree of conceptual integrity to them -- and if I say "my character wouldn't do X", what I'm really saying is, "I have an understanding of my character that is not consistent with doing X -- and if I make him do X, then that understanding will become false."

This is not "no, I want it that way", because it's a much more specific claim. My character is a narrative feature like any other, and saying "my character wouldn't do that" is an invitation to explain why going to the effort of making a new character is worth the effort. Sometimes this justification is made in terms of other narrative values -- such as maintaining a sharp and focused conflict or ensuring that the characters arise organically from the setting. Sometimes the justification is made in terms of player needs -- for example, I think it's a good idea to compromise a character if it keeps players from being sidelined during play.

If I said, "my character wouldn't do that", and someone responded "but your character isn't real", I'd certainly get annoyed, because I'd see a demand coupled with a blanket refusal to explain why it's a good idea.

[Sean]

Neel,

I've been to Arizona, but I've never met one of my characters. So you seem to be glossing over some important distinctions here.

Nonetheless, there's a point to what you're saying. It's totally reasonable to say 'my guy wouldn't do that' because you have a sense of who that guy is as a fictional character and you think that character's integrity is violated by performing the action in question. There is such a thing as violation of character integrity.

But the choice not to violate character integrity, like the choice to violate it, is a choice made by a human being at a particular time. So not owning that choice - which some gamers do not, without being schizophrenic - is a kind of mistake.

Here's the thing: when you read a book and character integrity seems to you to be violated, you get mad at the author, right? (One also gets mad when narrative integrity is violated - authors are responsible for both.)

So when someone in your group does something you perceive as integrity-violating, you have the right to ask them: "Dude! Why did you do that?" Since you're 'authoring' the thing together as you go.

The answer in such a case should not just be "Because it's what my character would do", but rather some supporting material which explains why the character's player thinks that that's the best or most appropriate action. To bring the other to be able to share in the judgment of integrity.

I think.

And the bar is higher for a good answer in games where there are substantial goals of play beyond fidelity to a relatively static and highly detailed conception of one's own character. I think.

[Green]

Guys, please.  This is interesting and everything, but I'd rather this thread focus on the impact that the One True Way has had on each respondant's roleplaying experience.

[Ron Edwards]

Yikes, good point. As one of the guilty parties, let's get back on topic.

Best,
Ron

[Mortaneus]

As far as the situation with the Dragonlance character in Arthurian fantasy, I'd say that sounds like a Social Contract issue that led to a blow-up in the establishment of the elements of Exploration, more specifically a conflict between your desires with regards to setting, and her desires with regards to character.


Getting back to the original topic, I'd have to say, for me, the single most pressing 'One True Way' issue I've encountered in my roleplaying experience is the supposed truism of 'The GM is God'. I've encountered way too many players who believe, wholeheartedly, in this this statement, and refuse to question its validity in any context.

[Callan S.]

Mortaneous: On the dragon lance/Authurian setting I agree.

On the 'GM is god', yeah, that is terribly recurring. Even though most will acknowledge that if all the players leave the table, he isn't a 'god' of anything. The thing is, it's hard to describe how people can be sitting at the table but at a credibility level, starting to walk away/staying further and further away. How do you crack this perception that he is 'god' when he's just anything that the other players grant him at any given second.

And why is the 'GM is god' idea circulated so widely? Is it the fallout of terrible mechanics on RPG culture, thus leaving the idea that to get any effective gaming done some user has to have draconian power. 'GM is god' rose out of 'system doesn't matter'?

Is the 'GM is god' idea damaging to new thought? Ie, why come up with nifty new rules when it's in the GM's 'god like' area of work to handle that? Certainly I can find about four reviews of TROS on RPG.net where there is actual resentment of spiritual attributes. Even getting down to 'Does the author think we don't know how to write games!?'

[ffilz]

I was just thinking about this in relation to my post about "story continuity" and the issues behind that for me...

One impact of "The One True Way" on my play experience is the demand by some that you "earn" your way. For example, if you join a campaign, you start off as a 1st level character. Or in the thread on Monte Cook's boards that I referenced, that you be expected to sit out of the game when your character dies and even if that will be a long time because of the particular story being told, that the fun of the other players would be destroyed if the GM bent the story to let you back in.

This is an element I struggle with myself, though in my most recent campaign I experimented with having every PC have the same number of experience points (whether the player was there or not, or if the character was brand new or had been played from day 1).

Frank

[John Uckele]

I personally like my one true way, such to the point where I don't consider Standard D&D 3rd Ed. Role-playing (I consider it dungeon tromping). I often GM and I play a very narritive/sim style. I've had problems with playing with D&D 3rd Ed. Players because of certain issues.

Example: As a GM, I usually run games where I roll all the dice (for two reasons, one so that combat moves faster, two so that people can't figure out enemy stats/hidden target numbers). I had an issue with a gamist D&D player who was not enjoying my game because he didn't get to roll for his character in what (little) combat their was. I think he also had a problem with the amount of combat. He ended up leaving on his own.

Example 2: As a GM, I understand the roll of GM to be absolute god. Someone can question the GM quickly, but contesting a point and bringing the game to a screeching halt (especially about a mundane point) is not okay. The theif in the party of a game I was running failed his spot traps check and fell down a trap door. I gave the player a few points of damage and he just flat out REFUSED to take them. After a few minutes of arguing about whether his character really fell down a pit or not I booted the player from my game. I'm a grumpy GM and that was just too much for me.

Otherwise, mostly I've had positive experiences. I've played with four players who I get along with (hell, that's most of the people I get along with), and it works well enough for me. I might have a banal and closed perception of what role-playing should be (not to say that I don't enjoy gamist play, just that I don't view it as role-playing), and I'm happy with it.