Casanova, homosexuality and underage sex

[Mike Holmes]

Just to head off the obvious counter-argument, Ralph isn't saying that it's wrong to enjoy the immersive mode, it's just one option. A valid option, but not one he's interested in apparently. I myself can enjoy either.

The point is, however, that Ralph is correct in that he was pointing out that what Max is looking for is an exploration of the difference. That's why people are having problems. They realize that to get this you need to have two things delivered.

First, you need to have the feeling that this is abnormal delivered. That is, that it's different from what you think is normal. Then you need to also have delivered that the character thinks it's normal. It's precisely the disparity between the player's feelings and the character's feelings which are sought.

This exists in all sorts of RPGs already. Consider Unknown Armies. It's exactly that you don't have your "meters" reset, and the characters do that makes the game disturbing. As the character becomes inured to killing, you aren't supposed to become inured as well (and if you are, I don't want to know you). What you're supposed to experience is the horror of the idea that a character that's a protagonist is having such terrible emotions.

(BTW, for those following the thread on RPG.net, this is precisely the problem that posters are having trouble with on that thread. There are those who think that the only way to get a kick out of RPGs is vicariously, and hence that having a character do these things is tantamount to actually doing them, and then there are those who understand that one can dispassionately observe the character as an author does. Steven King isn't evil, his characters are.)

This is certainly fertile ground for exploration in terms of setting, culture, etc. A fairly open mechanic would be to reward players for looking into these differences. That is, instead of saying, "huh, just like 18, well then, whatever," saying, "just like 18, well, does that extend to the neighboring country as well, or is it just a local thing?"

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

I don't know how to express it any differently than I've already done Simon.  Except to point out that you are operating from the assumption that immersion within a characters mindset is the primary goal (or even a goal) for all roleplaying.  It very well may be for you.  But you should start with an understanding that many think it is not only unnecessary but a tiresome and boring way to play.

I suppose I'm arguing that some level of immersion is necessery, otherwise you are not actualy playing a character, you are simply responding personaly to what happens to a character that is seperated from you, much as a reader of a book might react to what happened to a character in the story. Roleplaying is more than this. Once you remove or limit a players ability to play their character, which is what you're doing by denying in-character information, you are weakening the link between player and character that is necessery for roleplaying to take place. You are making the player more a passive observer and less a participant.

As a player I want you to hook ME.  I want you to interest ME.
I have about zero interest in pretending my character is interested when I am not.

My character doesn't exist.  It is a piece of paper with numbers on it.  It can not be bored, shocked, surprised, annoyed, frustrated, or anything else.  .....

If you're going to go to the time an effort of setting your game in a completely different culture. something that is intentionally NOT just American treehuggers with pointy ears; then it had best be something meaningful to the PLAYERS.  If its only meaningful to the characters its pointless.  Characters have no meaning.

This is all true, but I believe that in the way you suggest presenting this cultural difference is not actualy through the medium of roleplaying. Suppose I play a character in a game set in ancient Rome. All sorts of behaviour that we consider sexual depravity is considered normal. I am perfectly aware of this, I as a player have read about Caligula and Tiberus' antics on Capri, and know the facts. However suppose the game is set in a Roman brothel - we've infiltrated it to get close to a Senator that frequents it. Through the medium of roleplaying, I am presented with information I already know, but in a very different context. My character may feel relaxed about what is going on in the rooms around him, but I as a player may not. The creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting will certainly strongly colour my experience of the game.

Personaly I don't think I'd run a game in that setting, or enjoy playing that part of the game all that much, but I think it's a valid way to use the cultural diffferences in a setting to underline it's difference from our peresent culture. It's also a way of doing it within the medium of roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs

[Valamir]

This is all true, but I believe that in the way you suggest presenting this cultural difference is not actualy through the medium of roleplaying. Suppose I play a character in a game set in ancient Rome. All sorts of behaviour that we consider sexual depravity is considered normal. I am perfectly aware of this, I as a player have read about Caligula and Tiberus' antics on Capri, and know the facts. However suppose the game is set in a Roman brothel - we've infiltrated it to get close to a Senator that frequents it. Through the medium of roleplaying, I am presented with information I already know, but in a very different context. My character may feel relaxed about what is going on in the rooms around him, but I as a player may not. The creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting will certainly strongly colour my experience of the game.

This is all true Simon, I'm in full agreement with you.  But we already covered this above when we discussed the alternative is to make sure that all of your players are walking encyclopedias of period knowledge.  See YOU'VE read about Caligula and Tiberus but have the rest of the players (or seen the somewhat censored History Channel version)?

How would you convey the same creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting to players whose sole exposure to Rome was the movies Gladiator and Sparticus.  They have no context for any of the things that you allude to above.

I return to the 3 points I've already made:
1) expect them to become educated before playing.
2) find a way to deliver the context to them during play
3) don't play because they lack knowledge you deem to be a prerequisite.

Do see any other option?  This thread in general, and my suggestion that you took issue with was solely about #2.  You've already agreed that option #1 isn't very practical.  I have the sense that your first choice would be #3, in which case there is no game and there's nothing further to discuss.

But assuming #2, what other methods would you use to convey this information from the GM who knows to players who don't during play where their characters should be expected to.  

The steps I outlined above was one such way.  Obviously it is not the only way, but it has, for me, the key advantages of: keeping the players involved and not sitting on the sidelines watching NPCs interact, and not stopping play for the GM to deliver paragraphs of explanatory exposition.
Personaly I don't think I'd run a game in that setting, or enjoy playing that part of the game all that much, but I think it's a valid way to use the cultural diffferences in a setting to underline it's difference from our peresent culture. It's also a way of doing it within the medium of roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs[/quote]

[damion]

I return to the 3 points I've already made:
1) expect them to become educated before playing.
2) find a way to deliver the context to them during play
3) don't play because they lack knowledge you deem to be a prerequisite.

I believe a combination of 1 & 2 can work.
1)Since the vast majoritiy of RPG's out there require a large amount of reading just to create
a charachter, Reading a few pages of background info is not much of a problem. It should definaly be integrated into the social contract however.  Also, a failure to recall information should not be used by the GM to embarass the player, but it may require breaking play
for 'explanatory info' (which could provide incentive in itself).

2)I think this can also integrated into the context of play, say by having the players observe the actions of NPC's and peoples reactions.

My point is I don't see the communication of necessary info as a barrier to this sort of play.
Actually, it may even be possible to explore these things by having players observe NPC's, but I don't think that would get the desired reaction

[M. J. Young]

The easy solution is just play Multiverser; then when we drop you into Cassanova's Vienna, you have no clue what the norms are, and you know it, so you're exploring the culture from the outside.

O.K., not what everyone wants to do, but it does solve the problem of players not knowing what characters know.

You can do the same thing in other ways. Would the British ambassador to Vienna have any clue regarding the cultural mores of the locals? In his country, it is quite definitely punishable under law to engage in such conduct with anyone under eighteen, and more severely so with anyone under thirteen. If what you want to do is create a tension between the player's views and those of the game culture, giving the player a character who is himself a stranger to the culture may give you the best of all worlds. You can get that Cassanova reaction, when the young girls make a pass at the PC, and their mother encourages it; you can even bring in the quite natural (and embarrassed) efforts of the PC to find out from someone with some official standing just what the laws are in this regard. I can see a PC trying to talk to a constable or some court official or a lawyer in an effort to get the matter clarified, without saying anything that might reflect badly.

Er, excuse me, sir? I, well, earlier tonight, I became aware of some young ladies--they were very young ladies, children, really, at least by British standards--who were flirting with grown men. I'm a bit of a stranger here myself, but back in England we call such girls "Jail bait", as their seductive efforts can get a man in a great deal of trouble. Yet no one at the party seemed concerned by this, and it was actually suggested by someone purporting to be the girls' mother that, er, private liasons with the girls might be arranged. I thought before I got anyone in trouble--well, indeed, as local ambassador, I will have to advise British travelers on the matter--just what is the law about this?

That may be a fourth way to handle it: create PC's who know no more than the players, for whatever reason.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hey Ralph.
It's late and I need to get up in the morning, but I note that you are making the same distinction of player vs character I was making until I changed my mind.

The game should be directed at ME. After all, I'm the one spending hours of my time choosing to play. Hooking the character is a waste of effort if you don't hook the player

How about using an element of play to hook the character, an element that has been hooking players and readers and film/tv audiences for years: the characters? If the player is hooked by their own PC and then the PC is hooked, this would work, right?

[Valamir]

Of course Jack.  You're still hooking the player.  That's the whole point of Kickers.  What is a Kicker except some situation regarding a character that a player is hooked by.

Imagine a GM imposed Kicker handed to a player.  Its every bit as cool and kick ass as any Kicker that's ever been written...except its something that the player in question couldn't care less about.  Does it work?  Does it work as well?

Lets say the GM comes up with a great hook that fits right into the character's background.  Does the character care?  Does the character care whether the hook makes sense or if the GM is expecting the character to do something that's....err...out of character.

Nope.  The character doesn't give a rip whether or not he has the opportunity to avenge his fathers death.  Only the  player cares...or doesn't care.

IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player.  If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player.  If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

The question then is if the player does not place high or any priority on the goals and backgrounds written on the character sheet, then why are they written down in the first place?

I have an answer from my own experience, because the GM told me to. Hence I do not play with that group anymore.

[Valamir]

Quite,
Other reasons would include:

1) point based games where these things made it onto the sheet for the benefit they gave at Char Gen without any desire to actually see it played.

2) games that require "Player must select 1 Flaw" type of thing, where the choice may wind up being not one the player likes, but rather one that the player dislikes least.

3) players who are resigned to being led around by the nose by the GM who feel obligated to include such things on their sheet for the GM to use (i.e. the poster child for Hooking the Character)

4) playing a pregen.  Here I'm thinking going mostly off of templates provided in the game.  For convention games there are different expectations and I think often players are willing to cater to those.  But you will still see squabbles over who plays what character which are really nothing more than trying to find one that hooks the player.  You will also often see players playing stock characters totally out of character because the character as written didn't hook them.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hmmm.. uh-huh. All of which strike me like making love through a hole in a sheet. I kind of like to look at her, thank. Look at her eyes.

Now, are we saying that this is how some people play and this may not be for some or are we identifying a problem?

[Valamir]

At this time Jack, I've completely lost all track of your train of thought.

What point are you trying to get to?

If you are attempting to question the rationale between my distinctions of hooking me vs. hooking the character you are heading down a completely different track from the context of that discussion.

I made that point in the context of Simon's comments about metagame, it had nothing to do with creating interesting characters (except to point out the fact that the very act of creating a character that it specifically interesting to the player is itself a huge Metagame act).

[John Kim]

Lets say the GM comes up with a great hook that fits right into the character's background.  
...
IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player.  If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

It seems to me that both sides are talking past each other here.  I think Ralph is assuming a style along the lines of Sorcerer, where there is a "hook" which the GM comes up with.  Jack is I think talking about a different style where the PC itself is the "hook" for the player.  These aren't "hooks" in the same sense of the word.  They are different styles of play.  Both can work, but they are distinct.  

As a player, I tend to prefer a more background-based play similar to what Jack is talking about.  My experience has been that I prefer it if the GM does not try to do anything active to "hook" me.  My best experiences have often come from times when the GM didn't even understand my PC.  Instead, I like it if the GM simply concentrates on developing his NPCs and background to make it interesting to play off of.  

On the other hand, as a GM I do tend to actively come up with hooks since that is what my players tend to prefer.  I have run two campaigns in a purely open/un-pre-plot background-based style, but the majority are more directed than that.  The point is just that it varies.  While the GM can take effort to "hook" the players, that isn't a part of all play styles.  Alternately, the players can be responsible for making characters hooked to the situation and setting.  

---------------

But we have a particular topic here, which is conveying other cultures.  My first reflection is that it is best to introduce things slowly, and to start with the familiar.  I played in several campaigns set in T'ang dynasty China.  The GM knew an enormous amount about the culture and gave us long handouts, which I even read.  And yet still, I always felt I was floundering and not understanding in social interactions and elsewhere.  

My main thought is that it is important to build up context.  You can't start the campaign with all aspects of life fully fleshed out.  In my current campaign, I have (as it turns out) phased in different parts of life.  Originally, politics, economics, and marriages were assumed to be happening but were not paid attention to.  However, increasingly they have become a focus of the game.  Originally the focus was on more familiar elements of viking life: feuding and raiding.  Over time, though, context built up and details of other parts of life fleshed out.  

With regard to Casanova, I think I would start out the campaign assuming that sexual encounters were taking place but skimming over any questions regarding them.  I think I would bring up questions like sex with minors only after context was built up over attitude towards children.

[Valamir]

I'm not sure you're following my point precisely John (and BTW you have Sorcerer backwards, its the player who creates the "hook" not the GM).

There is never ever a situation where a character is hooked...by anything...ever.

Characters are not real.  They cannot DO anything, they cannot respond to anything, they cannot be hooked by anything.  

I don't care how much time you spend developing an intricate background for your character, it isn't your character who's being hooked.  Its you.

Part of your interest in being hooked as a player, may well be to be hooked through the vehicle of the character...but its still you the player being hooked.

The point of all that tangental discussion, was to demonstrate that to achieve the effect desired in the initial post at the start of this thread...that being the active highlighting of "alien" mindsets found in cultures with radically different morals from our own REQUIRES that those issues be directed *at the player*.  Because directing them at a character who doesn't exist is pointless to the exercise.

[Jack Aidley]

I disagree Valamir.

Take, for example, the Warhammer game I'm currently playing in. My character started off as a devout follower of Sharafali, a few sessions in he discovered that Sharafali is, in fact, a particularly evil elf holding all of humanity in salvery. So he was a bit pissed off (to put it mildly). A few sessions later we discovered another religion - 'the Old faith', a very nature based religion, and my character's current aim is to find out all about this, and possibly become a follower of it.

It's a great bit of accidental plot, and what's more it's not something that interests me at all. I'm an atheist, and very happy being one at that. Religous discussions almost invariably irritate me, particularly nature religions. I am really enjoying this only because it hooks the character. Not me; the character.

Back to Casanova. I fully agree with Simon - to do it as you present it would shatter the immersion of the roleplay and, for the way I like to play, annoy me. It is near impossible to roleplay a character in a foreign place you can only access through your imagination anyway, without deliberatly breaking that link to make an out-of-game point about the culture.

[Valamir]

Sorry Mr. Jack.  What you just described may be the way you describe such things.  But your description is inherently impossible.  I'll repeat.

Part of your interest in being hooked as a player, may well be to be hooked through the vehicle of the character...but its still you the player being hooked.

If you are really enjoying it...than you are the one that is hooked.
You may be hooked on behalf of your character...but your character is just a piece of paper.

As an exersize.  Rewrite your post without once ascribing emotion, action, or motivation to an entity that doesn't exist.

For example:  "and my character's current aim is..."

should be rewritten as:

"my current aim for my character is..."

Rewrite your post in this manner and it will become immediately obvious who is being hooked.

Moderator:  You may wish to split off these last several posts which have turned into a discussion in their own right only tangentally related any longer to the purpose of this thread.