Son of Inviolate characters

[Glendower]

It was a bit of a swipe.  I should probably feel worse about it than I do.  There have just been so many straw men and misdirected threads.  I hope I'll be forgiven a split second of snarkiness.

Hey man, I hear you.  The Forge forums in general tends to poke you where it hurts.  And when I'm fired up, I want to write some angry shit.  I began to write angry in replies to some of Sindyr's posts, and now they sit on the the forums as evidence of losing my cool.  It's embarrassing stuff. 

Ron and Clinton's policy of no deletions are a harsh but useful lesson.  Nowadays, I go through a few drafts of what I put up, checking the preview, checking the spelling, before I finally hit post. 

Of course, even with all that, I'm still guilty of the odd annoyed forum message.

[TonyLB]

Another very common and important part of the societies of other forums of which I've been apart is 1) staying on topic and 2) letting moderator lectures happen in private messages so they don't disrupt staying on topic.

You're quite right that the post was something I should have convey privately.  I regret not having had the sense to do so in the first place, and apologize for the resulting public spectacle.

[TonyLB]

Well, I would like you to withdraw that I am an inviolate player without actually seeing me play. That was my point in the beginning (You did judge my style of play).

I will happily concede the point.  If you say it is so then I certainly accept that and I am very pleased for you.  I am sorry if I have given any other impression.  Reviewing my text I can see that I may well have done so, and I apologize for not having been more clear.

An aside:  You have noted that my prose has become more stiff and formal.  You are quite right, but I hope you will not think that it is a particular response to you or to this situation.  I can only plead the excuse that I am in the midst of reading through some two thousand pages of Jane Austen at a single go (Emma, Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility ... research for my next game!) and it is having a very marked impact on how I write.

[Eric Sedlacek]

Ron and Clinton's policy of no deletions are a harsh but useful lesson.  Nowadays, I go through a few drafts of what I put up, checking the preview, checking the spelling, before I finally hit post. 

Well, I've bailed on plenty of posts myself when I realized I just couldn't make them civil.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I thought I would briefly go into why I think the ability to play non-inviolate characters makes you better at role playing in general, including games with inviolate characters.

Playing a character which other players can mess with makes you a master of seeing the alternatives.  This is an invaluable skill in role playing.  

Let's face it, in this hobby of ours, it is really easy to get into a rut.  Whenever we play, no matter what game we play, we still bring our same old selves to the table and this produces some constants in our play.  Many of us have easily recognizable characters that we play again and again.  I have my iconoclast curmudgeons who don't quite play by the rules.  Tony has his energetic ingenues.  Sydney has his faintly disturbing penchant for playing creepy goth teenage girls.

That's all okay.  It's escapism, and there is nothing wrong with playing to our strengths.  The problem is when the only input into a character is from yourself, constants can easily congeal into same-old-same-old.   I know it's happened to me.  I kid myself that this new character is different from all the old ones and then end up doing all the same stuff.

In a game where characters are not inviolate, you can't get away with this.  Your vision will be disrupted on occasion.  In response, if you resist the temptation to take your goodies and go home, it is inevitable that you learn to adjust.    What you learn is that your Vision(TM) for the character is more flexable that you thought it was.  There are other ways to go with it, and you damn well better get good at finding them or you are going to be sitting in your chair with your head spinning while everyone else plays the game.

Meanwhile, if after this experience, you go to play a more traditional game, those skills remain.  You have seen the lie behind the oft-quoted phrase "Sorry, that is what my character would do.  I can't help it".  You see that the whole idea of one's character taking on a life of its own and making its own decisions independant of you the player is an illusion born of a lack of self-awareness.  When you play a character, there is no character, only you, and you always have choices.  When you think a character is playing itself, you have lost sight of the choices you have.

Stripped of this traditional role playing baggage and armed with new character playing skills, you are more adaptable in any sort of game.  You learn to bend the Vision(TM) the suit the game and to maximize fun in ways you couldn't do before.  You become a more proactive, more skillful role player.

Now this isn't magic.  I know I still struggle with my own weaknesses in gaming, but I am more aware of them than ever before and they don't have quite the bite they used to.  I'm growing as a gamer, and part of that has come because I have played this new kind of game.  That can only be a good thing.

[De Reel]

It is a great thing to write angry. There is no reason to walk around shouting your intentions. Unity is a force. Why lose voluntarily an edge you have ? Don't, please.
Also, rereading is a very different thing from selfcensorship. Also, proactivity in a situation where you have to listen could well be bound to be uncivil.

[De Reel]

As there is no way to reach you, I will make my message to M.Sedlacek relatively public.
I would like to point at the massive intrusion of terms such as illusions, lies, and "duplicity stuff" in your text. There is a living theory on theater that would allow one to be self conscious and still play his/her part. Even better this way. "paradox of the comedian"(?).

My main worry is you're going suddenly thematic. The issue was "inviolability", and I see you heading the other way around. The introduction of said terms crossed with the previous sentence is a specific "set mode" of my pugilistic sense. Where are you heading ? I think you're just looking for something and you don't know what. Great lord ! This is Lord Dunsany's hunter made real ! This is adventure !

Of course, I say that because I still have difficulties to handle such terms to get a clear result. I will worry enough for two, so you don't have to.

[greyorm]

You're quite right that the post was something I should have convey privately. I regret not having had the sense to do so in the first place, and apologize for the resulting public spectacle.

When used in moderation, public moderation is a useful and valuable tool to help reinforce and teach community standards: they help provide concrete "and this is what you should not do" examples for everyone. I don't think you have anything to apologize for as a moderator in posting publically; instead, it is very valuable to the community that you have done so.

[Larry L.]

Mouth-of-Darkness,

Dude, it's time to lay off the drugs. Really.

[De Reel]

Yeah, I smoke too much when I get tense. I could have used some anger management therapy as well, but everybody here did great.

To all of you party people outthere : until I get rid of all my own skelettons in the cupboard, I wouldn't blame no little girl for hiding an Otesanek . Only hope she'll be able to tell it before it is too late.

[Vaxalon]

When you think a character is playing itself, you have lost sight of the choices you have..

At the risk of continuing a thread that mayhap should die, I would like to say this:

Sometimes the illusion you speak of is just the illusion we seek to draw around ourselves.

That's why people who talk in movies get evil stares; they're breaking the illusion that the people sitting there aren't watching a movie.  Yes, it's true, no, we don't want to be reminded of it.

[TonyLB]

Sometimes the illusion you speak of is just the illusion we seek to draw around ourselves.

I agree completely.  Sometimes that illusion is what we want.

I don't think that's incompatible with saying that the illusion holds us back.  Do you?

[Eric Sedlacek]

Sometimes the illusion you speak of is just the illusion we seek to draw around ourselves.

I agree completely.  Sometimes that illusion is what we want.

I don't think that's incompatible with saying that the illusion holds us back.  Do you?

There is also a difference between deconstructing the illusion in a discussion on role playing and stomping on the illusion during play.   It's the difference between discussing the merits of a movie outside the theater and shouting "This is lame!" inside the theater while the movie is playing.

The former can only be healthy.  We should understand our illusions even as we indulge in them.

I am definitely not advocating the latter.

[TonyLB]

Well, I don't think the movie metaphor matches up with RPGing very well.  The movie venue assumes a social contract in a way which is not paralleled in an RPG.  There are very few accepted venues in which anything other than silence is an appropriate response to a movie:  Rocky Horror Picture show leaps to mind ... how would you feel if someone were shushing the audience of that film?

RPGs can involve thinking-as-your-character or thinking-as-author or both.  In a group where thinking-as-author is acknowledged to have priority there is nothing wrong with vehemently stomping on someone's illusions that their character is running the show. 

In fact, I find it a very powerful technique.  "Okay, what are your stakes?"  "Well, my character wants ... " "Don't tell me what your character wants.  What do you want?"  That's squashing the illusion that the character is driving right there, isn't it?  That strikes me as a good, productive conversation in (say) Capes or PTA.

[Eric Sedlacek]

In fact, I find it a very powerful technique.  "Okay, what are your stakes?"  "Well, my character wants ... " "Don't tell me what your character wants.  What do you want?"  That's squashing the illusion that the character is driving right there, isn't it?  That strikes me as a good, productive conversation in (say) Capes or PTA.

Point taken.  I was picturing something far less constructive than that.

[De Reel]

I disagree with the opinion that a player playing only inviolable characters is childish and fearful. I would like to say that :
SUBSTANCE on SUBSTANCE - sometimes you will see a player so anxious that he resorts to magic. That is, repeating something in order to make it true : for instance "my character is a tank - I play as bunker - it is by retention only that I clad my mind in armour". Many people do that. It is effective only in some specific situations. It is inefficient when a constructive social interaction is required because it prevents perception of the surrounding : bad roleplaying, bad narration. That said, I wouldn't arrange"fearful", "childish" and "playing only inviolate characters" any other way. I know a paranoid player that is very versatile. He pla
SUBSTANCE on RHETORIC - it is known that tagging someone with any (good or bad) names or epithets is proposing him to "internalize" and "be consistant with" the perception you have of him. It is especially effective on people who rely on others to know what they are.

Some people play inviolable self : this is autism. Daring them, getting angry at them won't help no-one.