Is taking responsibility for your character really so hard?

[Eric J.]

I'm going to echo some points made.

There are a lot of indecisive players who may see roleplaying as a task rather than as a chance to be creative and have some fun (or whatever.  i don't really know).

As far as I can see, this is a no-win scenerio.  In the sim. sense he decided that it would be right to dual him and get his butt pwnded.  There really wasn't any other option.  It's a pretty clear-cut case of deprotaonization.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Bill Cook]

.. Zoro has, in situations much like that, laughed, tagged the sucker, and then run away until later. And yet for some reason in RPGs this gets labeled as cowardly ..

I love this option. It's right in line with the genre, yet most systems are unable to process it. And most players either don't think of it or can't overcome their unspoken reservations about the system giving support.

I don't know 7th Sea. One way I imagine this working out is like this:

[*]D: I make a rascaly comment and maybe give him a little cut on his neck. Then I run off, leaving him fuming in impotence.
[*]GM: Ok. Roll rogue-ish indignity against Castilian stuffed shirtedness.
[/list:u]

Only trust that the GM won't drip stakes in the name of realism or as a prod to advance his agenda could allow such flavor.

[Eric J.]

I should have posted a way to resolve the problem.

A large part of this type of problem, as you stated, is from expectations (or presumed expectations) on the character's, and therefore player's, actions.  Take away that, and he has the freedom to slit his throat, hit him over the head, steal his boots and run, or whatever.

Oftentimes players confuse sim. (or gamism or narrativism) with having only one correct option, as if gaming is a complicated multiple-choice test or something.

Talking with your players about allowing them more options is a good idea.  I've always found that GM's implication on how to play to be vastly important.  The problem is that most player, in my experience, have some one-way-to-play complex and it's hard to burst.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[hyphz]

It sounds a lot like I what I was really trying to say in the RoboPlayer thread however many moons back.

That is, the method of roleplaying by working out a deterministic "what my guy does next" program, then just running it over and over - not really making any free decisions at all, but appearing to do so as the result of variables shift in the program.  In this case, the program might have been, "do what Zorro would have done in this situation".  Probably it wasn't exactly that, probably it was something more based on the dynamic of the RPG group and the setting and the GM's behaviour and the vagaries of the system and all of that.

And what happened here was that the program crashed - it failed to return a result for that situation, and so of course the player desperately ran off to find out what should be in the program at that point.

The typical cause of this is that the player feels that their OOC thoughts should play absolutely no part in their play of their character.  They can't dare to invoke their own brain's decision-making, or free will, while roleplaying because that would be acting as themselves, not their character.  Instead, they have to cobble together the nearest approximation they can get of their character's decision-making process and run that again and again.

So the answer to the title question would be, "Why should I be responsible for my character?  I'm just working out what he'd do, if he's not responsible that's just how it's worked out."

[John Kim]

The typical cause of this is that the player feels that their OOC thoughts should play absolutely no part in their play of their character.  They can't dare to invoke their own brain's decision-making, or free will, while roleplaying because that would be acting as themselves, not their character.  Instead, they have to cobble together the nearest approximation they can get of their character's decision-making process and run that again and again.

You're using some kind of hyperbole here, but it just doesn't make sense to me.  Your claim here is that in-character decisions don't use the player's brain?!?  What, they use the character's brain and the player just watches?  That makes no sense.  Following what your character does is using your brain.  

More generally, in my experience, if someone is stuck in indecision over their character, it hasn't helped at all to tell them to ignore the character and make the decision out-of-character.  The problem is generally that they are stuck with many options which all seem arbitrary, but they feel will carry weight that they don't yet understand.  Taking out the character just makes it more arbitrary, and if anything increases pressure (since you're saying that you will judge them as a person for the decision they make).

[Sean]

John -

Hyphz is speaking a bit hyperbolically, but what he's talking about is real. There are at least some role-players - I've played with several - who get totally stuck in 'what is the right thing for my character to do here' where
'my character' is defined not just by me but by setting materials, GM secretrs, etc. that I have only partial mastery of, and on which I depend on books and/or the GM for information. So that someone else is assigned, in my own mind, credibility over how my character would act in certain cases.

Technically that player is making a choice to assign credibility to their character to something outside them, sure, but they would tend to talk about it more the way hyphz does. And this is problematized because in order to establish e.g. shared setting or color there are some things 'about our character' that we give up sole credibility to decide from the get-go, always.

I think the 'option paralysis' you talk about also exists though. I wonder if you're trying to say the phenomenon that hyphz is talking about, which relates to some preconceived notions about 'roleplaying right' and the internal discipline some people put on themselves to meet them, is actually the same thing as what you're talking about, or if you think they're different. I tend to think they're different because you cite being unsure about consequences as the important point, as opposed to being unsure about what the right thing to do in that situation is.

[hyphz]

Your claim here is that in-character decisions don't use the player's brain?!?  What, they use the character's brain and the player just watches?  That makes no sense.  Following what your character does is using your brain.

Sure.  But what I was saying is that they feel a character's decisions shouldn't be made using free will.  Because then it would be the player's free will, not the character's.  The character's behaviour should be deterministic, a function of the character's role, the setting, the social contract and dynamic, the situation and the game system.

I can guess several sources for this belief... for instance, the belief that the character's behaviour must be deterministic so that the GM can "railroad-but-not-railroad" the character by hitting the right determinants (from the old fallacy of "all adventures must be railroads because the GM has to know what to prepare in advance").    Another one is that they have to do it that way because they have to be prepared to answer a "Why would your character do that?" challenge from other members of the group - the expected answer to which is a list of factors that determined the character's behaviour.  Or, maybe, they are asking that question of themselves when thinking about what to do.

It's something that I've seen a lot on online RPGs.  It's not uncommon to meet up with a player in out-of-character chat, establish you want to role-play together and then be told "Uhh.. I can't do that - I want to meet you, but there's no reason why my character would meet yours."  Note the key phrase there - there is no reason.  Not "my character wouldn't", or "doesn't want to", but "there is no reason" - determinism.

This brings up the issue of character development versus character behaviour.. ie, the idea that there is no way a given behaviour can "develop" a character, because deciding to do that behaviour was already part of the character before it happened.  It sounds here like what the GM was hoping for was that the player would call "Ok, Fredrico cuts Sebastian's throat", or "Ok, Fredrico drops him and runs", or something - and that done, that would become a new aspect of Fredrico's character.  The player's interpretation, OTOH, was that which of these he would do would already be an aspect of Fredrico's character (as would be required for him to act deterministically) and he just had to find out what it would be.

The problem is generally that they are stuck with many options which all seem arbitrary, but they feel will carry weight that they don't yet understand.  Taking out the character just makes it more arbitrary, and if anything increases pressure (since you're saying that you will judge them as a person for the decision they make).

Sure, I understand that.  But what you really want to say is something like, "It's OK for Fredrico to do something for no reason if he wants to."  But then, if the character is acting for no reason, what he does must be purely the player's choice..

[jburneko]

Wow, this has been a lively discussion.

I want to address the issue of deprotagonization.  I don't think that was the case here.  I, the GM, didn't force this situation on the player.  And I didn't put any limits on what the player could decide for his character.  I admit that my group has the no-kill knee jerk thing going on but I *try* to discourage that.  But overall whatever, he would have done, I was willing to roll with.  As far as I can tell deprotagnoization has NOTHING to do with "having good choices."  All the choices may have been bad, but the choice was still fully the player's.

Overall, I think hyphz has hit the nail on the head.  I also think we have very bad verbiage for discussing that phenomenon.  You can have two different players say, "Well, the character would do this..." and one be talking about the sort of deterministic play that hyphz is talking about and the other mean, "...in the way I have chosen and concieve the character to be."

In fact, I think player S is very much like this.  She talks about her character being external to herself MORE than any other player in my group.  She says things like, "I'm sorry but this is what Genvieve would do..." when her action is about to screw over another player or "Oh, god, this is going to be bad but Genvieve must do this..." when her action is about to screw over herself.  But from everything else S does, I can tell that all of these statements carry an implicit, "...as I have concieved of her" or "...as I feel the need to express her at this time."  Genvieve feels external because she is a disected, compartmentalized component of S's authorial expression.

On the other hand D is using things EXTERNAL to himself as the measure for his character in exactly the manner hyphz describes.  And since D is NOT that experienced of a roleplayer I'm trying to figure out where this need to shield his character decisions with external standards of expected behavior comes from.  Hyphz offers some good possibilities.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

We have better verbiage, you're just not using it because of your narrativism bias. The verbiage is that the player was playing in excellent sim style, trying to find out the most in-genre thing for a character to do in this case. Did someone suggest the "Zorro" option?

Morover, did the player ever make a decision? I think it's interesting that you never do say just what the outcome was. Did the session end with him still looking?

If the player had been playing narrativism and was saying, "Damn, Jesse, but this is one sticky situation that we've gotten my character into. I really want to think about what would be the coolest thing that the character could do here in terms of the issues." Then you'd have forgiven, nay, even applauded the delay by the player.

But it's sim, and so you see that as "irresponsible." Once again GNS is found to be perfectly descriptive in discovering standard incoherence.

Ohh, and is it the players fault that he's got a different CA?

I admit that my group has the no-kill knee jerk thing going on but I *try* to discourage that.

Ah, yes, everything but play a narrativism supporting system. Instead you play a sim system with a mechanism that you can directly point out is directly supporting the sim decision making process in question, and you then wonder why the player is playing sim.

Well, frankly, it's your behavior, being the one who knows the theory, that's baffling me, Jesse.

Mike

[Itse]

But what I was saying is that they feel a character's decisions shouldn't be made using free will. Because then it would be the player's free will, not the character's. The character's behaviour should be deterministic, a function of the character's role, the setting, the social contract and dynamic, the situation and the game system.

...you say that like it's a bad thing. I sometimes take pleasure in trying to let the character "out of my control". I also can't emphasize enough that this is not because of "simulationist" intentions. I just feel that most often the most interesting, heartbreaking, funny, weird and realistic things ( = "stories" ) evolve out of that kind of playing. This way of playing can make me go into directions I would've never gone to "intentionally". I also would never call it deterministic, as life is hardly very deterministic.

I've discussed this somewhat with some players with similar behaviour, and I've found that I'm not alone in this. Granted, if combined with artistic insecurity this will easily lead to player indecision and as there are always situations which can't be resolved through character immersion only. Of course, this approach also needs to start with the creation of a well thought out and complex character, as otherwise it easily leads to very unimaginitive / stereotypical character behaviour / gaming..


As a very simple suggestion to these kinds of situations, tell the guy to roll a die (possibly in secret) and go with that. Some of you reading this will propably think of this as idiotic, as it's a quite extreme way of avoiding decision-making. There's three reasons I recommend this. First, these situations can get really uncomfortable for the player, which never leads to anything good (basic psychology says so) so it's best to try and resolve this quick. It also keeps the game flowing. Third, you can always cheat on the die roll. If all you're really looking for is the right to do what you want, there you have it. Personally, I sometimes roll a die, and then consider if this is really what I want more. If not, I do the opposite. It really makes no sense when explained, but I've seen this work for a lot of people.

I'm sure some purists will be highly disgusted at my highly practical approach. This is of course just a band-aid for the real problem, but when the game is on, it's just better to cover up the problem and leave the healing work for later.

[jburneko]

Hello Mike,

A few posts back I did describe what happened.  He went for the duel and lost after putting everything he had in into a intimidation attempt which a) succeeded b) robs the opposition of dice for the durration of the scene.

Yup, the simy bent of the system is often a hinderence but there are things I've done to substantially drift the system (and the setting for that matter) to suit my purposes.  We've had extensive discussion where we've all agreed that any CA can be realized despite the system.  It's just a matter of whether you're standing on a concrete foundation or on rickity stilts hanging over a cliff.  I mostly run 7th Sea because I have such a high imaginative commitment to it from my players.

But I do want to point out that if this were *just* a preference thing I wouldn't be bringing it up.  In my Tuesday group I have a player with a fairly developed Step On Up CA.  It's clear that what he does is what's fun to him and any disconnect between him and myself is fairly opened and acknowledged, at least on my end.  You don't see me posting questions about him because I know what's going on there.

If D were lovingly pouring over all the sourcebooks, taking copious notes, enthusiastically citing source material, or otherwise taking pleasure in his perfect expression of whatever external standard he was holding himself to then I would say, yes, this is preference clash.  I would also expect some attempt to hold others or at least acknowledge others when they meet his expectations.  None of this happens.

Instead, it seems to me, that D is hiding from something.  That there's an underlying, assumption about roleplaying, rather than a developed preference behind the behavior.  I get the adherence to Actor Stance assumption, I've dealt with that for years.  But to actually go actively searching for justification and even decision making algorithms, mid-game, is mind boggling to me.  I'm looking for the underlying source of fear.

Of course, it may turn out that source of fear is my and at least a few other of my players' commitment to conflict expression and resolution and all he wants is to be a swashbuckler for day.

Jesse

[Brand_Robins]

Now I do think that hyphz is onto something, as I have often seen the kind of behavior he talks about (and often in online RPGs, making me wonder how similar our experiences are), and I think it was likely influential in this situation. However, let's take these things that you told us about the game:

1.

For those of you unfamiliar with the setting this bascially means that Fredrico is Zorro, if Zorro was an organization rather than just one man.

2.

Somewhere deep in the 7th Sea books it says something like, "7th Sea is game about heroes and heroes don't kill people." ...  But what all this amounts to is that my group frowns on any other player even contemplating killing a foe they've defeated... the group gave her this kind of disapproving shocked stare.

3.

I don't think he's concerned with 'winning' per se, so much as 'looking good.' And here he was in a situation where there was no way to 'look like Zorro.' If he killed him he'd look evil. If he took the mask and ran (which is what I think the player REALLY wanted to do) he'd look like a coward. If he stood and fought he'd lose and look incompetent.

As a note on #3 there, I'd like to know where the judgment terms: evil, cowardly, and incompetent come from – are those things you are saying, that the group was feeling, or that you didn't say, think, or feel but were coming fully from within the player? Because, as I said before, taking the mask and running is very much in type for Zorro, so I'm not sure who is saying it would be cowardly.

Really, the players particulars aside, this is a bad recipe for giving people the support they need to make decisions that will further their character. The system, the group, and the situation were against him to a point that he could not play the kind of character he wanted to play. He's Zorro, but in a situation where he can't be Zorro. He's in a situation where he may well want to kill the guy, IC and OOC, but with a group that will react to that negatively. And the system being used backs all those problems up.

So yea, I think you did what you could as a GM, but sometimes that  alone isn't enough. A GM can be fully willing to support what a player will do, but if the group, the system, and the situation seem all set to punish the player despite the GM's backing then a helpful GM alone is often not enough to help a player who already has problems with deterministic play.

Also, you say this guy is fairly new. Have there been times in the past where he has bucked the will of the group and had you back him? Does he have tangible proof that you will back him, and/or that even if you do back him that he won't get dirty looks from the rest of the group? Looking at the one example you do give:

I jumped in and said, "If that's what you want to do, go ahead, there's no problem with that. You might take a reputation hit, but that's your call."

I can see the player taking that as less what you intended it (I assume an "awesome, do what you want and push the situation!") and more as a temporization ("well the system is really against it, thus the reputation loss, but if you really want to I won't stop you").

I believe you when you say you would have backed the player in any choice he made, I believe you tried to make him know that. I'm just not sure that he actually knew that. What is the history with this player, and this group, in people going against the judgment of the whole group with only you at their back?

Edit due to cross post:

Then you added this:

Instead, it seems to me, that D is hiding from something. That there's an underlying, assumption about roleplaying, rather than a developed preference behind the behavior.... I'm looking for the underlying source of fear... Of course, it may turn out that source of fear is my and at least a few other of my players' commitment to conflict expression and resolution and all he wants is to be a swashbuckler for day.

That's part of what I was getting at above. It's obvious this guy is either on a different CA or is not able to mesh play with you in some way. It could be something completly seperate from the game too, but if so then it's going to be near impossible to "fix." Especially as I'm willing to bet he doesn't have the language to express why he does as he does or what he wants, exactly, out of the game.

[Mike Holmes]

Is this, or is this not, a common behavior for this player? If it's common, then it's a sim CA on his part. If it's not common, it's just indulging in a bit of "atomic sim" when it occurs to do this.

You don't see people diving into books looking for the "right" thing to do in a particular case, and looking for algorhithms mid-game? Then you've lead a very sheltered RPG existence. It's as common as snow. Just because you live in California and have never seen it doesn't mean it's not a completely normal behavior.

Put another way, I've done this. I've done this playing in what would otherwise be games that would be characterized as narrativism. Call me an incoherent ninny, but I do stuff like this all the time.

Brand does, too. He's the guy who I "saw" rolling his own traits against each other in Hero Quest to see what his character would do. Totally unsupported by the rules. Very sim feeling, as the player is actually abdicating their ability to make a statement with the moment, instead trusting to the game to do it.

And completely typical (like Itse's example).

What you'd have to prove to me is that the player is not having fun by doing what he's doing. That's the only way that I'd buy that his acts were intrinsically dysfunctional, and not just his preference on how to play. Can you actually say that he's shooting himself in the foot? Or is it just that he doesn't share your CA during these moments?

Mike

[hyphz]

Uhoh, I think I'm stepping into a minefield here, but I don't think this is a GNS issue.

First of all, I'm not clear on the use of Simulationism really.  The classic behaviour of Zorro is narrativist, not simulationist.  The focus of the movies and stories is to enable Zorro to do cool stuff, not to simulate what the world really would be like if Zorro existed.  To argue that trying to simulate Zorro in an RPG renders the RPG simulationist because you're trying to simulate something, even if that something is narrativist, seems rather uncomfortable.

The second problem is that GNS defines "creative agenda", yet what this player was clearly trying to do was to avoid creating anything, wanting to instead act on something already existing in his character.  And it wasn't a case of rolling traits against each other to see which one's dominant; he was looking for a specific action for his character in the book, based on a very wide-ranging group membership (being an El Vago).

One possibility is that they generally don't want to be creative with the character, and just want to get the coolness value of doing "what that character always does".  I've seen that online too, but it's a lengthy example and off-topic.

[jburneko]

Hey hyphz,

I appreciate the backup but Mike's right.  If what was going through his mind was, "Hey, I swore to protect this girls honor and now I'm at the honor duel portion of the story and we'll according to my understanding of how a Zorro like story flows I'm supposed to win this but I can't, something's wrong." Panic. Panic. Panic.  Then he's being simulationist.  And the panic is coming from the fact that the group has placed him in a new conflict situation that doesn't match his story flow expectations.  CA clash.

I've thought about it and I grant this is a possibility.

I was, however, deliberately trying to keep this GNS neutral because I think one can have ownership and responsibility for the their character regardless of CA.  If you're a simulationist and you're holding up your character to some pre-play set of expectations and standards, that's fine, but acknowledge that that is the case.  Admit that the limitations you've placed are your own and that the choices you make are still wholely YOURS.  It seemed to me as if D was denying that he had a choice in the matter.  In fact he was looking for proof that he had no choice in the matter.

Jesse