Inviolate characters: The Security Blanket

[TonyLB]

Over on the thread just mentioned, Sindyr asked a question that is (to my eyes) an attempt to clarify the issues on this thread.  Or maybe it's a rhetorical question and the answer was supposed to be "Oh, no, of course there's no justification for such stuff!"  Whatever.  I'm giving my justification.

I created an authorship mod. We employed it in our game.  Everyone was happy, and everyone had fun.

If a group of like-minded people want to play a variant of Capes that includes this rule, and if they are relatively certain that playing with this variant will be much more fun than playing without it, then in what way is anyone entitled to fault these players for so doing?  In what way is anyone entitled to claim that their own style of play is in anyway superior to the way my group plays?

Well, I can do a whole bunch of interesting things that you refuse to even attempt.  Whether that makes me a better roleplayer than you is a fascinating and difficult question.

Suppose we hold all other factors equal:  We assume that I am exactly as good as you are at playing with inviolate characters.  No better, no worse.  I think that it's clear (but hey, who knows?) that in that case I would be the superior roleplayer.  I can do everything you can do plus all that other stuff.  Unless you value that other stuff at precisely zero (which is a separate claim, if you want to make it) then that pretty much gives me the advantage.

Now it's virtually impossible to hold all other factors equal, of course.  Am I better than you at playing with inviolate characters?  Who knows?

But, really, who cares?  Because there are two cases where I can hold all other factors equal:  Myself before I try to play vulnerable characters and myself after I try it.  If we assume that my skill at playing inviolate characters stays exactly the same (again, a point that might merit debate) then I am a better roleplayer after expanding my horizons than I was before doing so.  I've improved.

So I worry that you're missing a crucial point here:  I'm not saying that, if you cling to the notion of inviolate characters, you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with me.  I'm saying that you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with what you could be.

[Andrew Cooper]

Tony,

I also think it is interesting to note that you didn't mention anything really about preferences.  If you can play skillfully with both vulnerable and inviolate characters but prefer inviolate characters, that's not better or worse than preferring the other method of play.  It's just your preference.  However, in order to have a preference you have to acknowledge (and have experienced) both modes of play.  Otherwise your preference is just ignorance.

[Sindyr]

Well, I can do a whole bunch of interesting things that you refuse to even attempt.  Whether that makes me a better roleplayer than you is a fascinating and difficult question.

I think "better" is like taste, an opinion.  I would argue that we are talking about perhaps, versatility.

But, really, who cares?  Because there are two cases where I can hold all other factors equal:  Myself before I try to play vulnerable characters and myself after I try it.  If we assume that my skill at playing inviolate characters stays exactly the same (again, a point that might merit debate) then I am a better roleplayer after expanding my horizons than I was before doing so.  I've improved.

So I worry that you're missing a crucial point here:  I'm not saying that, if you cling to the notion of inviolate characters, you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with me.  I'm saying that you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with what you could be.

I think that the crux of the mistake that I perceive you to be making.  Inferior is the wrong word, with entirely the wrong denotations and connotations.

Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?  Of course not.  Perhaps if they were to play tennis badly, then you could say that their tennis skill was inferior, but you certainly can't say that they as a person are inferior.

Perhaps if we just adjust the language to something more appropriate we will come to a meeting of the minds.  Any of the below I find acceptable and probably true:

If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, my ability to play Capes will not be as versatile as if I did.
-or-
If I do not play Capes without inviolate characters, I will not have experienced as much of Capes as a could have.
-or-
If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, I will not be find as many kinds of fulfillment in Capes as if I did.

If any one of those three things are your point, then I understand, and agree.

But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

It only equates to versatility.

Are we on the same page now?

[TonyLB]

Nope.

Someone who can play golf and tennis is, cetera paribus, a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Didn't I basically say that already?

[Sindyr]

However, in order to have a preference you have to acknowledge (and have experienced) both modes of play.  Otherwise your preference is just ignorance.

That's incorrect - and a common fallacy.  If you were right, then one could not decide to not have children until one had experienced having children.

Burning one's hand on a hot stove is not the only way to learn not to do that.

I have acknowleged many different ways to play - but I myself do not necessarily have to try or experience them in order to know if they are for me or not.

I have never played football.  Given my aversion to pain, sweat, and exhaustion, as well as several other factors, I do not think it necessary for me to go experience football before I conclude that it isn't for me.

Even if I wanted to, neither I nor you have the time to go and try to experience everything we have ever considered.  Sometimes we are forced into making educated guesses based on the limited resources of time we possess.

It is merely the intelligent thing to do to weigh the benefit of even pursuing actual experience of something before comitting the time and energy to do so. 

For me, giving football a try would be a bad investment.  And the same may be true of playing Capes without an authorship rule.

[Andrew Cooper]

But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

Just because you don't consider it to be true, doesn't make it not so.  If I can play every sport you can play at an equal skill level plus 3 more that you can't play at all, then objectively (or as close to objectively as you're going to get) I'm a better athlete than you.

Cross posted with Tony...

[Sindyr]

Nope.

Someone who can play golf and tennis is, cetera paribus, a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Didn't I basically say that already?

What if the person who plays golf and tennis plays them both badly, and the person who plays only tennis plays incredible well?

Or, more to the point, what if both people can play both games equally well, and the only difference is that one of them enjoys tennis and gold, and the other one, who can play both, only enjoys golf?

Is the person who doesn't enjoy tennis (although he can play it) inferior to the one that does?

[Sindyr]

But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

Just because you don't consider it to be true, doesn't make it not so.  If I can play every sport you can play at an equal skill level plus 3 more that you can't play at all, then objectively (or as close to objectively as you're going to get) I'm a better athlete than you.

Cross posted with Tony...

That completely and utterly depends on how we define athlete.  If the definition of athlete includes sportmanship and attitude, and if you happen to be a bad sport where I am a good sport and fun to play with and against, then even if you play more games than I do, I may be the better athlete.

This is why it is innapropriate to use terms like inferior and superior, because it always hides "according to what standard?"

The only way in which a person is a better athlete than someone else by knwoing how to play more games is only by defining what makes a better athlete thusly, which is circular.

If a different standard or criteria is used to value how good an athlete one is, than simply knowing how many games two different people can play will not help you determine who is the better athlete.

[TonyLB]

What if the person who plays golf and tennis plays them both badly, and the person who plays only tennis plays incredible well?

Cetera paribus is latin for "all other things being equal."  Does that sound like all other things are equal?

Or, more to the point, what if both people can play both games equally well, and the only difference is that one of them enjoys tennis and gold, and the other one, who can play both, only enjoys golf?

Then we're not talking about a person who can play tennis and golf vs. a person who can only play golf, are we?

[Andrew Cooper]

Burning one's hand on a hot stove is not the only way to learn not to do that.

We aren't even talking about the same thing here.  Of course you don't have to burn yourself on a hot stove to learn that it's hot.  It's not even remotely like what I was talking about.  Let me give an example...

You:  I prefer Peach Pie to Apple Pie.
Me:  Have you even eaten Apple Pie?
You:  No.  But I've seen people eat Apple Pie and it doesn't look good.  I prefer Peach.

Thus far in the conversation your preference is just plain ignorance.

Your football example above is closer to what I'm saying.  At least in it you are basing your preference on some relevant experience.  You don't like pain.  You don't like to sweat.  You don't like physical exhaustion.  You don't like some of the components of football, so you don't like football.  Fine.  I still think it's bullshit but that's up to you.  At least it's based on some experience.  I don't like any of those things either but I still like football because the activity is more than the sum of its component parts.

[Sindyr]

I think we have drifted far of the topic of this thread and are now actually discussion the topic of the other thread - perhaps we should do so over there?

What if the person who plays golf and tennis plays them both badly, and the person who plays only tennis plays incredible well?

Cetera paribus is latin for "all other things being equal."  Does that sound like all other things are equal?

Did I say I spoke latin? I know a few phrases, but certainly not all.

Or, more to the point, what if both people can play both games equally well, and the only difference is that one of them enjoys tennis and gold, and the other one, who can play both, only enjoys golf?

Then we're not talking about a person who can play tennis and golf vs. a person who can only play golf, are we?

No we are not.  We are talking about someone who could choose to do something, and doesn't, because its not fun.

Wasn't that always what we were talking about?

[Sindyr]

replying to the questions here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19614.0
because it is more on topic there.

Thanks

[TonyLB]

No we are not.  We are talking about someone who could choose to do something, and doesn't, because its not fun.

Wasn't that always what we were talking about?

No, it wasn't.  You originally asked:

Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?

My answer remains:  Yes, all other things (including skill at golf, sportsmanship and sex appeal) being equal, someone who can play golf and tennis is a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Likewise, all other things being equal, someone who can play inviolate and vulnerable characters is a better roleplayer than someone who can only play inviolate.

[Bret Gillan]

The idea presented in this thread was a major breakthrough in my Capes gameplayer. Previous to it the conflicts were boring. "So and so beats up so and so." "So and so extracts information from so and so." It was fun, to be sure, and even when I was playing at that "level."

This last weekend I ran Capes at a convention, and was playing Quentin Quadro, boy genius. My friend Bob (ubergeek2012) was playing Xixtan, a huge, terrifying robot, and I saw that he had a whole lot of debt tokens on Pride and Fear. So what conflict did I play?

Goal: Quentin Quadro terrifies Xixtan.

I sat on a nice pile of story tokens after that, *and* Bob got to "prove" that Xixtan was a huge, unflappable badass. Everyone wins, and it was way better than "Quentin Quadro fights Xixtan."

[Sydney Freedberg]

Thank God for you, Bret. Exactly. A real-life example of what we're talking about: It's more fun this way -- try it!.

My personal experience I keep citing in this discussion involves people (Tony, primarily) doing this to me, and, darn it, I'll cite it again, because the discussion needs more Actual Play:

....in the last two sessions, I've had both my spotlight characters change at least in part against my will. I'd been steering Minerva for a descent into doomed villainy and self-destruction -- and then Tony threw a time-manipulator character at her who tried to steal that destiny, and won. Conversely, I'd been steering Kettridge towards becoming a solid, good guy, and Tony & Eric basically used the mechanics to say, "Really? 'Cause he still seems like a domineering jerk to us," in particular when (Tony? Eric? I forget) put out a Goal for Kettridge, "Tell his superiors the whole truth" -- which meant, by its very introduction into play, that Kettridge was lying by omission about something important, which hadn't been my intent at all -- followed in this most recent session by a flurry of goals like "Kettridge: convince Zak the destruction of his homeworld was for the greater good," "Zak: Prove Kettridge's actions are all part of a selfish conspiracy against the team," and "Kettridge: Convince himself he's telling the truth."

And in each of these cases, with each of these characters, I had a stomach-flipping moment of, "Wait! That's not what my character's like!" For some of the Kettridge conflicts, I actually went so far as to ask what the rules for vetoing the introduction of a conflict were (we never use them). But, in each case, I came to the point where I decided to trust my fellow players and take their suggestions and run with them -- and the result was much, much richer than anything I'd have imagined by myself.

There were even moments where I poured in enough resources to win a couple of these conflicts -- and then deliberately narrated them to leave open the possibility that Kettridge was a traitor, after all. There were also moments where I fought desperately but just didn't have the resources, so someone else got to narrate a crucial turning point for my character. And it was okay. In fact, it was great.

I feel like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix (the first one, obviously), staring at the little kid warping a spoon without touching it and being told, "The important thing is to remember that there is no spoon."

There is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.