[Misery Bubblegum] I love you the way you are, now change!

[TonyLB]

In the most recent Misery Bubblegum development thread, Callan posted:

The next step is not to discover yourself, so much as to try and break yourself to fit in. Because without a choice to leave, you don't have a choice to be yourself.

....

Basically, rather than the proud nar games where you show your inner self to all, a simulationist game of watching your PC's inner spirit die.

And, basically... yeah.  I think that a character who ends up having forsaken the things that make them unique, and become a role she hates is a very valid answer to the thematic questions of high school (and particularly to the thematic question of Misery Bubblegum:  "Who will you let influence the person you become?")

But there's one important point:  The spirit doesn't just die.  People kill it.  And not (always) out of malice, either.  So I've got a topic for discussion:  What type of need do I serve, for myself, by changing another person?

I'd like to get some theoretical discussion before trying to translate this into the current rules, so feel free to speak generally.  But I've got some specific situations to (perhaps) inspire comment:

Lisa:  Gawd, Becky, I thought you were going to help!  The red envelopes go to purchasing, the yellow ones go to accounting.
Becky:  Uh... okay... but you never told me where these blue ones go...
Lisa:  Oh forget it!  You obviously don't want to help.  It's easier for me to do it myself than to try to force you against your will.

The parental figure who protects a child, reforging them into a person who needs constant protection.

An admirer who forces the object of their adoration to live up to impossible standards, so as not to disappoint their biggest fan.

A circle of friends who cast one of their number as "the trouble-maker" and therefore egg them on and encourage them to get into trouble.


I don't think there's much doubt that this sort of role-casting has power over people.  That's not really what I want to debate.  Assuming that you can, through your expectations, change another person to meet those expectations... why do you do it?  Particularly, why do you expect things of them that are counter to both your apparent happiness and theirs?

What deeper needs are being addressed that, once they're understood, make these apparently irrational actions into rational pursuit of an understandable goal?

[Doug Ruff]

What type of need do I serve, for myself, by changing another person?

The need to reinforce your own existential position. The need for attention. Projected desire.

Lisa:  Gawd, Becky, I thought you were going to help!  The red envelopes go to purchasing, the yellow ones go to accounting.
Becky:  Uh... okay... but you never told me where these blue ones go...
Lisa:  Oh forget it!  You obviously don't want to help.  It's easier for me to do it myself than to try to force you against your will.

This is an absolute classic. Now view in the light of Lisa having emotional investment in the statements "I am overworked" and "no-one can help me". This is her existential position.

If Becky actually manages to help her, then Lisa is no longer overworked and is going to have re-evaluate her self-image. Lisa also probably uses this image to gain sympathy and as fuel for other psychological games.

So, Lisa makes it impossible for Becky to help her. Becky ends up unhappy, Lisa is still overworked and stressed, but her viewpoint is validated and gives her some dark satisfaction.


I'm not a psychologist, but I'd say this is what's going on here. In terms of your game, there's probably a "death spiral effect" required. I project a shitty trait onto you in order to reinforce my own shitty traits: you do the same to me, things spiral out of control.

However, this begs the question of what causes the initial trauma. Maybe the adults in the character's lives? Cause they've got their baggage already:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad
They may not mean to, but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you

(Philip Larkin, This Be The Verse)

[Allan]

I completely agree with Doug, people are driven to reinforce their own identity paradigms.  

The parental figure reinforces their own identity as a protector.

The admirer reinforces that they adore someone worthy of adoration, and so are valid themselves.

The circle of friends want the vicarious thrill of being near trouble, and define themselves as good and mature in opposition to it.

Even when people recognize the destructive effects on themselves and others, they choose the security of their paradigm over freedom and acceptance of others.  These are scary concepts that threaten ones feeling of individual identity.

Is there any room in this model for people to redeem themselves and accept others?  Or does all socialization lead into this death-spiral?

[TonyLB]

Doug, I think you're right in analyzing one level of the pattern.  But at that level you're also right that it is plainly irrational:  You'd have to justify it based on trauma, and people being scarred and screwed up.

I think Allan has nicely identified a motivating factor that can explain the same behaviors rationally:  Security vs. Fear.

A parent wants their child to be brave and independent and capable.  But my God... the downside risks.  If I let you climb a tree, twenty feet up above my arms, then maybe you wave at me gaily and then clamber back down, energized and alive.  But maybe you tumble and crash to the ground with a sickening thud.

Do the other examples have the same idea of security vs. fear?  Of willingly losing a dollar, rather than risking ten dollars for the slim chance to win twenty?

Well that depends:  What does Lisa lose if she trusts Becky to help her, and Becky actually doesn't?  Assume that Lisa gets no satisfaction out of being overworked, and genuinely would like help.  Is driving someone away less of a loss than being rejected?

[Doug Ruff]

Ok, I was being a bit dark, I admit.

Security and Fear does it for me as well. In the Lisa/Becky example, if Lisa lets Becky help her deal with the filing, then Lisa has to deal with something else which she isn't confident of being able to deal with. Rather than face the difficult task, she prefers to spend her time filing inefficiently, because she is overworked (existential argument) and doesn't have time to do everything.

The existential statement "I am overworked" is actually an attempt to put a positive slant on things: it's more acceptable than saying "I cannot manage my workload."

And, yes, there is fear, but the fear has to be based on something. If the protective mother is scared of the child falling to the ground, isn't that based on trauma? Even if the trauma happened to someone else?

The circle of friends egg someone else on, because they want the thrill, but they are afraid of punishment. They have been punished before and they didn't like it (trauma).

The admirer one is more interesting, I'd have to think about that. But I think that most of these scenarios fit perfectly. It's just that the trauma isn't usually as severe as my first post made out.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Doug, I think you're right in analyzing one level of the pattern.  But at that level you're also right that it is plainly irrational...

Ok, I was being a bit dark, I admit.

No, Doug is not being too dark at all. Being miserable is a source of power. "I'm overworked, no one ever helps me" can be a club to beat people into saying "yes, you're so virtuous, we defer to you, since you put in the most effort you should determine the outcome." Conversely, "I'm useless, I never do anything right" is a club to beat people into saying "you poor thing, let us do it for you, you're off the hook." I know people like this. On my bad days, I am people like this (like both of these examples, scarily enough).

Now, each disfunctional bit of identity ("I'm overworked," "I'm useless") requires a complementary bit of identity on the part of the other person: If they just say "well, that's too bad" -- or even "gee, let me help you with that" -- you're screwed. But you can use your disfunction to create the complementary disfunction in others {EDIT: or just annoy them into appeasing you} and then to sustain it. Which gives you power over them. Which is the point.

Of course everybody's frickin' miserable as a result, but hey, "I would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven," right?

[TonyLB]

Yeah, it's a self-reinforcing cycle, but as Doug points out it needs to get started somewhere.

Okay, example time:  I am watching back-episodes of Alias.  Here's the situation of the current episode.  Sydney Bristow, her father Jack, and her mother Irina, are infiltrating a facility.  Irina married Jack as part of deep cover for the KGB, used and betrayed him, then escaped.  He's not real keen to trust her, naturally.

In order to have any chance of infiltrating the facility, they need to split up.  If they don't split up, they fail.  Guaranteed, 100%.

And, of course Jack doesn't want to let her out of his sight.  He is, indeed, quite ready to say "Okay then, we've failed."  Sydney, who is more ready to trust her mother, forces the issue.

Now there are two ways to look at this, I think:[list=1][*]Jack has, as part of his identity, the notion "Irina Derevko is not to be trusted."  He's so very, very, invested in this I can't even describe.
[*]If he doesn't trust her then he knows the outcome:  Mission failure.  If he does trust her then there are a range of outcomes, one of which includes "Mission failure + Betrayal."  Mission Failure + Betrayal is worse than just Mission Failure.[/list:o]So, yeah, his tool for approaching the situation is "Irina betrayed me."  He's vested, and he uses it (as Sydney F. aptly puts it) as a club.  Using it increases its power and reduces his freedom.  So on some level, his actions may be foreordained... if he wants to maintain control then he needs to swing the club.

At the same time, he has rational reason to pursue a risk averse strategy, even if that strategy is a guaranteed loss.  He's mitigating the possible damage that can be done to him.  So long as he doesn't trust her, Irina cannot betray him again.  

I can likewise see the Lisa/Becky example from two angles.  Yes, she's got the "I'm overworked" thing going, it's an easy tool to hand, and that influences what paths she'll choose to pursue.  But at the same time there's an issue of vulnerability and risk involved:  If Lisa lets Becky in, lets her help, then the worst-case-scenario is worse than simply being overworked, right?

[Doug Ruff]

Tony,

That's not a bad analysis: now let me put a twist on it.

Jack's reasoning is only partly rational - he's been burned before, and he's weighing up the possible angles. However, is his analysis based on the actual likelihood of betrayal (and assessment of the relative costs) or is it skewed by his fear that Irina will betray him again? I haven't watched, but I'm guessing the latter.

Lisa's reasoning is even less rational: deep down she knows that she'll be much better off if she can get this job done, and she needs the help. However, to do so would mean facing up to her own bad choices, and that isn't an option she wants to take (so it gets projected away.)

Oh, and Sydney is spot on, as usual. Misery is power. Unless you're a goth, in which case it's a lifestyle choice.

[Sydney Freedberg]

We're all right!

Tony has a perfectly rational game-theory approach: "If I don't trust her, we definitely fail; if I do trust her, we might fail and be betrayed; therefore I can't risk trusting her." But Tony, you know what? I think the players will naturally take care of that aspect as they strategize.

I think the thing you have work into the mechanics is the crazy, disfunctional part: "I'm so unhappy that I'm making you unhappy, and I'll keep making us both unhappy until you do what I want!" Because players won't naturally have the right reaction to the suffering of other people's characters. If we're playing, say, D&Dand I start griping and whining about how I have the least hit points and gold piees and magic items and on and on and on and on, everyone (DM included) might start throwing me extra goodies just to get me to shut the hell up; but if I-the-real-person am sitting there happy and roleplaying how my fictional character is a whiny passive-aggressive shmuck, you-the-other-real-people are more likely to chuckle and throw me more grief -- unless my character's whining will mechanically affect your characters in some way.

[TonyLB]

Doug:  Yes!  Yes, yes, yes... Damn fine point!

We're talking about a Gamble here (in the Step On Up sense, though not necessarily in a Gamist context).  The thing is that you are Gambling not with known quantities like dice, but with the far less easily analyzed question of "What is this other person going to do?"

That's what makes it so exciting, and simultaneously so heart-rending.  Jack thinks that there is a zero percent chance that Irina will not betray them.  Sydney B. thinks that there's probably a 50% chance that Irina will not betray them.  We'll suppose that Irina knows there is a 100% chance that (in this case) she is trustworthy.  So his choice looks irrational to everyone but himself, and their objections look irrational or naive to him.

Now that's completely absent in the basic Lisa/Becky example, and so the only reasonable conclusion is that it's a power issue.  I see what you mean about that.  There isn't any history defined that would put Becky's intentions in doubt, and therefore the unknown/random element necessary for a Gamble isn't in place in that example.

Anyone have thoughts about how you would put the Lisa/Becky example into a context that makes Lisa's decision one about how much to Gamble?  I'm blanking on a way to do it, but I think that knowing what element needs to be added... that could be helpful.

[TonyLB]

Sydney:  I cross-posted, but, basically, yep!  I think that the players will naturally do the game-theory in their heads once you have them engaged in analyzing that Gamble.  

So I want to identify what the actual risk factor is, to the characters, so that I can match it with a risk factor to the players.

The most simple one I can think of:  Seth loves Ginny.  Seth tells Ginny that he loves her.  Right there, that's that Gamble.  His initial situation is "Ginny is not my girlfriend", value 0.  His hoped for outcome is "Ginny is my girlfriend", value 100.  His feared outcome is "Ginny rejects me", value -100.  But how is that -100 arrived at?  How is having been rejected tangibly worse than his starting position?  He still has no girlfriend.

[TonyLB]

Clarification:  (Boy, I'm posting like crazy)

I get the misery-power issue.  Cluelessness is also power, and a whole host of other things that are usually thought of as ineffective are actually very effective because they draw reactions from people indirectly.

Yes, absolutely yes.  That's got to go in.  I don't want to act like I don't think it's an insight, just because I think I understand it.  It's good thinking, and I definitely think it needs to be part of the game.

[Sydney Freedberg]

How is having been rejected tangibly worse than his starting position?  He still has no girlfriend.

I think this is where your mechanism of handing other folks your dice would work beautifully. Because the situation is NOT

Before: I have no girlfriend
After: I have a girlfriend OR I have no girlfriend

The situation is really

Before: She has power over me, but she doesn't know it
After: She has power over me, and she knows it

How she uses that power? That's Not Resolved Yet. "No" and "yes" are not the real answer to the question. Maybe she says "no" and it's the nicest thing she could ever do for you, because the next time she sees you, she treats you as if nothing happened, or maybe even a little bit more gently than usual. Maybe she says "yes" and she's going to be abusing you gleefully, or passively aggressing you to tears, until you stop loving her and walk -- if you have the strength to walk.

The game theory question, about intentions -- which is not what the imaginary character does, but what the real player does -- is always open, never final, because people can keep changing their minds. The only thing that's resolved at the "do you love me?" "Yes/No" moment is the game mechanics question of "here's power over me to use indefinitely as you will."

[Sydney Freedberg]

P.S.: Actually, what often happens is she knew she had power over you already (he or she, of course, but in real life it's pretty girls who are most aware of their effect on others). I'm envisioning the player of Character A piling resources into "A loves B" on A's character sheet, and then there being two ways of that whole pile moving to B's sheet and coming under B's control:
(1) Character A tells Character B "I love you" and Player A hands the resources over to Player B, or
(2) Character A says nothing but Player B makes a good "social perception" role and Player B just takes the resources. Ouch.

[Doug Ruff]

Anyone have thoughts about how you would put the Lisa/Becky example into a context that makes Lisa's decision one about how much to Gamble?  I'm blanking on a way to do it, but I think that knowing what element needs to be added... that could be helpful.

I think you've already got this down pat, but just in case:

Both Jack and Lisa's decisions are based on "gaming" principles. Except with Lisa, the psychological factors (admission of failure) have much greater weight than the practical factors. With Jack, practical concerns (the need to achieve the mission) are more closely weighted to the psychological (fear of betrayal).

So, how about if players have the power to influence each other's reward structures?