"Playing my character"

[A.Neill]

I agree with the point, in character play can accompany or underlie a vast array of goals/modes.

However, I would suggest that in-character play is more frequently used where exploration of character is a player's goal. Reacting to game stimulus in character is the most oft used vehicle to drive this sort of simulationist play. I don't want to open the old immersion debate – save to say that in character play is a powerful device for operating in the imaginary space that is the character.

Players will use archetypes, character notes, stats etc. to generate the character's response to in game stimuli in order to explore the character.

So, perhaps like stances, in-character play is a tool from the gaming toolbox that may be used in support of many play goals. While it is not a specialist tool, it does have a tendency to be associated with Simulationist goals, particularly exploration of character play. Without in character play, exploration of character would rely on what? A program of sorts made up of 'if then' statements dictating game interactions.  

Alan

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I fully agree with you, Alan.

In the interest of keeping threads in this forum shorter and more to the point, I'm closing this - with the exception of John or anyone else objecting to the basic concept that I've laid out above.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Furthermore, I provided several strong examples of how one can play "in character" and yet not address a Premise, as you requested. I'd like some acknowledgment of that.

Thus far, I see no challenge to my basic point: playing "in character" can accompany or underlie a vast array of goals/modes of role-playing, and is not confined either to Narrativist or non-Narrativist play.

Sorry about skipping your points, Ron, but to be fair you did specify that you did not want point-by-point discussion but only summary.  In general, your examples were very broad, such that it is difficult for me to say whether a Premise was addressed or not.  I would prefer a more concrete example like the Call of Cthulhu discussion on the other thread.  

More importantly, your examples often involved factors other than individual play of characters.  In my question, I didn't intend to say anything about how playing in-character works in otherwise non-Narrativist circumstances.  i.e. If the GM plunks us down in a dungeon and none of the other PCs have any personality, then yes I agree it is obvious that I'm unlikely to address a Premise regardless of how I play my character.  So I agree with you that playing in-character can accompany different modes of play.  

But, in turn, you seem to agree that if I am playing in a Narrativist game to address Premise, I am always going to have my PC act in-character.  This means that in role-playing my character, I never am forced to choose between acting in-character and addressing Premise.  So playing in-character can accompany non-Narrativist play, but it is never inconsistent with Narrativist play.  This implies that the difference between the Narrativism and other must lie in other aspects of play -- not in how the PC is made to behave.  This could includes choice of PCs, levels of abstraction, how the PC behavior is expressed (i.e. acting techniques), action resolution, and so forth.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

I agree with your last paragraph in full. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty complete paraphrase of my first post or two in this thread.

I raised that point to refute the widely-repeated inference that playing Narrativist must put "my character" at odds with "the story." As I say, and as you have now said, that's an oxymoron for this sort of play.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I think I may see something interesting here. I think that it's the term "decision" that's getting people messed up. It's not what decision you make that's determinate at all, really. It's in what context you make the decision. If the decision was made with power, then it's Narrativist. If it was made to follow another's dictates on theme, then it's Simulationist.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Let me add to that. It's a matter of creating themes. That is, if the player has or obtains the power to make a new theme, one not decided upon by another player, then he's playing Narrativist. If he has the power, and still plays to an already determined theme, or to no theme in particular, then he's playing Sim. If the player has no power, he cannot decide to play Narrativist. Power here being somewhat circularly defined and refined particularly as it pertains to the ability to create new themes.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

We've reached the point at which we're all saying the same things to one another.

Time to close the thread. Thanks. If anyone wants to spin off some implication or whatnot from it, please start a new one.

Best,
Ron