[Misery Bubblegum] Talking about other characters

[TonyLB]

I have no sympathy for such a character at all, I don't want them turn good because I want them to suffer and DIE DIE DIE! Can you relate to that?

Not really, no.

Maybe because you put your soul in it? In focusing on Gil and Cas, you focused on the players as well, and so you all could relate stronger?

Maybe, but I'm not sure I understand what "putting your soul in it" entails, in practical terms.  Can you talk about that in terms of techniques?

Perhaps speech and its accompanying subliminal communication is the most pure form of expression in RPGs, thus allowing for the strongest result?

Except, wouldn't that imply that any character who speaks would be appealing?  That certainly doesn't seem to be the case to me.  A character who just talks about the weather, or the dungeon, or (most commonly) themselves doesn't really endear themselves to me.

Compare "A cute girls walk up to you and giddily jumps around you saying how cute you are and that she totally loves you. She wants to be your girlfriend." with
"A girls walks up to you, "Oh my god you're soooo cuuuuute! I totally love you love you love you! Can I be your girlfriend? I'm totally in love!"

Or "The duke is full of himself, he basically ignores you and instead talks about his own achievements and downplays yours. He's an annoying prick." with
"Slaying dragons is something for a true hero, like me. I could have my whole demesne decorated with tropies, but truly only some of them where fit to be a significant bounty for a man of my stature. As I am no show-off, I only kept the significant ones. That beast down by the river? Not worth the title of dragon; not even a drake. A wolf stealing the occasional sheep at best. A true hero is not distracted by such trivialities."

Well, I find the first one somewhat appealing, and the second one totally unappealing.  But my experience with the technique makes me suspect that I could make either of them way more appealing to me, pretty easily:

Girl:  "Oh my god, you're sooo cuuute!  How do you get so cute?  I mean, you're a boy, and you're prettier than most girls.  Way prettier than me!  Do you exfoliate?  Do you wear makeup?  Do you sprinkle yourself with magic FAIRY DUST that makes you so pretty?  You DO!  You do, don't you?  Where can I get some?"

Duke:  "My goodness!  A quaint little drake.  This must be that little pest from down by the river, is it?  Oh, bravo.  Quite an accomplishment, given your obviously limited abilities.  We must have a fete of some sort in your honor.  Something small and unassuming.  I've always thought that we should pay more attention to people, like yourselves, that deal with ... well, the little problems.  After all, we can't ALL be heroes on the grand scale, like myself.  Some, like you, must be born to lesser roles.  And yet, a drake here, a manticore there ... it would all add up, wouldn't it?  We'd all be quite overrun if you and other well-meaning drudges like you weren't there to attend to these humble problems.  Yes, without question, we must have a fete!  We must honor you beyond your own meager accomplishments, for you stand as symbols of the many like you who are honored not at all."

[Jasper Flick]

Maybe, but I'm not sure I understand what "putting your soul in it" entails, in practical terms.  Can you talk about that in terms of techniques?

Eheh... good one. I think it's like when an actor really becomes the part. To really identify with the character you're portraying. To change your mindset in such a way you're feeling as if you're no longer in control but observing. You could call it self-hypnosis, but it needn't be on purpose. I'm afraid I can't put it in better words than that.

Perhaps speech and its accompanying subliminal communication is the most pure form of expression in RPGs, thus allowing for the strongest result?

Except, wouldn't that imply that any character who speaks would be appealing?  That certainly doesn't seem to be the case to me.  A character who just talks about the weather, or the dungeon, or (most commonly) themselves doesn't really endear themselves to me.

No, it's about the technique. Of course you have to use it right. What I'm wondering is whether, given that you communicate quality stuff, you'll be able to make a stronger impression if you actually say the character's lines instead of just describing what is said. I thought that you could do completely without speaking in-character, both players and GMs, but you made me doubt that.

I was actually interested in whether in both examples the non-spoken/descriptive version was less appealing or strong that the spoken/in-character one, not so much whether they appealed to you in general. It did get me something interesting though. To me, it seems what you did was take my examples and exaggerated them and added giddyness up to a point that you completely lost me. I am totally disconnected with the characters you portrayed because I am unable to parse them as individuals. To me they register as artificial over-the-top farces and my suspension of disbelief is destroyed. Nothing personal! No attack on your taste! That's just what happens in my head when I get to about halfway reading them. I cringed. I like watching anime and I get this same reaction every time a sugar-powered cute girl goes too hyper for me (I generally dislike shows in which that happens, but sometimes it takes me by surprise). It seems important to be on the same page about taste as well for this technique to work.

(In case you're wondering: my own giddy girl example was on the edge, for me. I really couldn't add to it anymore without destroying it for myself.)

Hm... this topic requires more thought. Good stuff Tony!

[TonyLB]

To me, it seems what you did was take my examples and exaggerated them and added giddyness up to a point that you completely lost me. I am totally disconnected with the characters you portrayed because I am unable to parse them as individuals. To me they register as artificial over-the-top farces and my suspension of disbelief is destroyed.

That's cool.  Let me suggest that it may be, in part, because there isn't actually any real character that they're talking to.

There's no cute guy.  We don't know whether he revels in his cuteness, or is made uncomfortable by the girls reaction, or what.

There is no dragon-slayer.  We don't know how he reacts to the Duke.

In the absence of these, the circuit we're talking about here is, really, incomplete.  Yes?  No?  Maybe?

[Jasper Flick]

Maybe. I don't think for me it's important that these characters are missing. You're right, things become more abstract if the other character isn't defined. But I find that in such cases I automatically make the circuit complete. I place myself in that void like I would personify with that other character if it has been there. I am the cute guy. I am the dragonslayer. But when the cute girl, the duke, suddenly ceased to be a possible personality for me, I myself could no longer be the cute guy, the dragonslayer. I get thrown out of the movie and back into the cinema. That is basically what happens when my suspension of disbelief fails.

Veering of topic again?

I think we agree about the technique. Having characters talk about (or reflect on, if you will) other characters has the power to make the audience more invested in them. How much you do that and how far you go are dials. You like them set higher than I do.
Man this is a useful tool!