The Forge Archives

In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7896">Who Cares? before Ron declared it finished,

Quote from: Drew a.k.a. erithromycinIt may just be the groups that I play with, but I only encounter "my character" when people are objecting to things. I wonder if "my character wouldn't" is more common that "my character would" in other people's experience?

I get a lot of "my character would"; but I think I can qualify that with two points:[list=1][*]I get it in an I-game, when people are playing themselves;[*]I get it almost entirely in the earliest stages of play.[/list:o]I think that's significant, because as the players are starting out to play themselves in a completely alien situation, they're stopping to think more about what they would really do, as themselves, and not what they would have a role playing game character do. It takes them a while to get comfortable in that, because they realize that a lot of things their characters do in games they wouldn't actually do themselves in the same situations, so they're trying to plumb their own personalities for the answers.

There were a lot of interesting points about the "my guy" idea in that thread, including that it's sometimes a reaction against the influence of others on a character, that it's sometimes about genuine character integrity, and that the character is always a shared creation even if one player "owns" him.

Are the majority of "my guy" experiences negative and defensive ones in your experience? I don't think I ever see that; but then, I don't remember being in a game in which people objected to how others played their characters.

--M. J. Young

For me - "my guy" is negative.  But "that isn't how I see my character reacting" isn't.  I USED to see "my guy" a lot (hell, I used to use it), but now I notice it as a sign to either discuss things with the group or leave.

I think a local convention game a year or more ago was the last time I thought I saw rampant defensive "my guy"-ism.  But my memories of some really unpleasant play that involved it are quite strong.

Gordon

Quote from: M. J. YoungI don't think I ever see that; but then, I don't remember being in a game in which people objected to how others played their characters.--M. J. Young

My last group would quite often say "your guy." We were all playing in a setting we hadn't played in, Japanese Feudal Legends setting  (Rokugan, The Legend of the Five Rings). This was in reference to the characters who were Samurai caste- 1 Samarai,  1 Shugenja, and 1 Woodsman (No he's not a Ninja. They don't exist silly. However, if he is found out to be Ninja, its revealed that they do indeed exist, the rest of our characters would probably kill him).

At the beginning it was common for players to say, "Your character wouldn't do that. He's a Samurai." The most dramatic example, which was the breaking point of this behavior, was when the characters figured out the killer of a clan leader was the  "last of her clan" who was repaying her debts to a ruthless overlord. They found her consort, helped him to commit seppuku (honorable suicide), tracked her down and had her brought before trial. All of this in name of loyalty to the emperor.

However, this did not sit right with the players nor the personality of the characters. We could have made another story. Most of our characters* were torn between the loyalty to the court and a sense of justice being served. They could have simply let the couple escape and deal with the dishonor of failing the mission or they could have covered it up or they could have let the consort take the blame. . .  That is to say, we as players could have had our characters do that. @

Either way a valuable leason was learned concerning "Your guy".
We, as players, conceided to "your guy" when characters are more complex than just fulfilling one role.

Interesting enough, come to read the original source material LOT5R, many of those nuances are built into the game, unlike Rokugan (LOT5R d20). Hopefully, I can convince the group to make the switch when everyone is back from seasonal work.

*In terms of story. I am not on that debate right now. ;)
@ Ok, I lied, this is indeed how I play the game.

I think that there are two main triggers for hitting the 'pause' (rewind) button that "my character would..." represents: The first is to get a moment to figure out what, indeed, that character would do - I have seen it used as you said, to give people a chance to frame their own reaction and then decide what their character is going to do, and, like I said, I've also seen it raised [more often in my experience, but I'll get to that] as an objection.

The first one, I think, is good, and valid. I like people to think when they're playing, it deepens the experience, as far as I'm concerned. Entirely divorced from GNS too, I might add - when I'm doing something with anyone I like them to be paying attention to what's going on. Ahem.

The second one, I think, while sometimes annoying, is also valid, and, indeed, important - it's a key indicator of dissatisfaction, be it with the game, the interpretation of an action, or the character. Every time I here "my guy would" I want to ask "why?", and at two levels - "why would your character do that (instead)?", and "why would you want your character to do that (instead)?".

I encounter it a lot in the LARP I run, but that's because a large part of it is Downtime, effectively PBEM, which sits around it - like I said, I sometimes have to interpret what's going on, and sometimes I get it wrong - when I'm told why someone would have done something one way, I can say why I thought someone would attempt it another. Now, in most cases, where it kicks in and it's an objection, it's because somebody meant to do something a little differently, and I filled in the gaps they left in a way they didn't expect. So we talk about it, and next time they leave different gaps, or take steps to fill them in, as their character would - it's a learning experience for all involved, so to speak. When it's what I'll describe as pissiness, it's awful. I hate it. I hate having to be the bad guy [actually, that's a lie, I hate being made to feel as if I'm being the bad guy]. I don't coddle when people screw up, but that's the way the game's run. In another game I'd fill in every gap to the player's advantage, but that's not what the game's about. Though, thinking on it, I'd better make sure everybody's clear on that. Thanks, The Forge, for giving me a second to think about something to improve my games. Again, I mean. Anyway.

At it's most extreme "my character would" is probably about people attempting to appropriate what amounts to Director stance for themselves. I certainly encounter it in games that grant all the power of that Stance to the GM, especially where that function is an interpretive one. So, of course, it's guaranteed to crop up in a PBEM that works on submission-response rather than Blue-Booking, now that I think about it, and, also, in tabletop play where 'scenes' are handwaved as "you get the thing", with two (or more) sets of imagined details. There are, of course, easy ways to solve this.

With regard to the L5R game, I think that the best way to bring that sort of behaviour to the fore, to avoid the "my character would" in play is to front load them. Those, I think, are an advantage of "social mechanics", which, to some extent, anyway, 'control' how a given character approaches situations. Certainly some games afford a view of this, with reference to reward, certainly. TROS and its shiny toys, but also, now that I think about it, Vampire (et al) with Natures and Demeanours. Willpower being gained for doing particular things sounds a lot like what I'm trying to get at. In the situation discussed, I think it's more about honour than anything else. Certainly Hero Wars has mechanics in place for the relationships between master, stranger, and a code to all vie for consideration, and I'm sure there are other approaches that I can't think of right now.

Anyway, that's what I think, now that I think about it. "My character would" comes about when people on either side of the character (player/audience) are not clear about their conceptualisation of that character, so the key thing, it seems, is to ensure that there is that clarity. The means to that end are various, of course.

Drew.

Hmm. I wonder what I'll think tomorrow.

Quote from: M. J. YoungAre the majority of "my guy" experiences negative and defensive ones in your experience? I don't think I ever see that; but then, I don't remember being in a game in which people objected to how others played their characters.

In my experiences, "my guy" situations only come up when something has already gone wrong.  If everyone were devotedly playing their characters with no conflicts (personal, GNS or other), then there'd be no need to bring it up.  This may be why you've never seen it - you and your players know how to pick characters that are appropriate to the setting and the group, thereby heading off these kinds of conflicts before they happen.  

In fact, it's a point I bring up several time in my book, where the added complexity of science fiction seems to mess up a lot of groups.  My two examples are moral conflicts and sort of "venue conflicts."  Moral conflicts are things like one character playing an honest and devoted cop while another plays an amoral assassin.  A conflict between the two is inevitable - are players willing to deal with that, or should they redesign their characters to fit?  Likewise, one guy wants to stomp around in a mech, while another wants to sneak around being stealthy and charming.  Maybe the GM can make this work, but maybe it would be better to redefine the characters so that they hve more common ground.

By the way, I see "my guy would" statements as often as "my guy wouldn't" - it all depends on the conflict.  One D&D gamer used the "my guy would" to justify robbing the other characters (after all, shouldn't a thief steal from everyone?).  A different gamer used the "my guy wouldn't" approach in an attempt to stop the group from fighting (since he would have happily fiddled with in-game technology all session long without a conflict anywhere in sight).

MJ, perhaps you're seeing "my guy would" precisely because there is a conflict - between what a game character is "expected" to do and what that person really would do.  Fortunately, it sounds like the conflict is internal for each person and therefore not messing up play.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisFor me - "my guy" is negative.  But "that isn't how I see my character reacting" isn't.  I USED to see "my guy" a lot (hell, I used to use it), but now I notice it as a sign to either discuss things with the group or leave.

I still think treating the character as if it exists isn't the problem with "My guy would".  I still think that's blaming the symptom.

The way I see it, the dysfunctional my-guy-ism is all about the my, not the guy.  The naughty player isn't saying "this is how the character works, so this has to happen no matter what you want", he's saying "mine mine mine, I can do whatever I want with this character, because it's mine".

And remember the other half of the dysfunctional pairing.  "In my game..."

:(
guilty

Quote from: cruciel

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisFor me - "my guy" is negative.  But "that isn't how I see my character reacting" isn't.  I USED to see "my guy" a lot (hell, I used to use it), but now I notice it as a sign to either discuss things with the group or leave.

I still think treating the character as if it exists isn't the problem with "My guy would".  I still think that's blaming the symptom.

The way I see it, the dysfunctional my-guy-ism is all about the my, not the guy.  The naughty player isn't saying "this is how the character works, so this has to happen no matter what you want", he's saying "mine mine mine, I can do whatever I want with this character, because it's mine".

I agree - but . . .

I have a guy in one group I play with, who I confronted once with the character doesn't exist thing.  He was using "my guy would" reflexively - force of habit - and getting the reminder that there is no my guy . . . that's what he needed to stop doing that.  Which opened up some REAL interesting play opportunities for him.

So yeah, if he'd been stuck in mine-mine-mine, "there is no my guy" would not have helped.  But since that wasn't the issue for him, but he was still acting as if there was a character out there - not because he believed it, or because he found it a useful perspective, but just because he was used to it - letting go of my-guy-exists really worked for him.

I've met a number of players who seem to be in this category, and see hints of such behavior in a lot of what I read on-line and in published game products.  So I'm probably being too vigorous in my insistence that "let go of the idea that the character is out there somewhere - you are in control, dammit!" is an important lesson because of personal experience and opinion.  I mean, it is my experience, and I do think it's important, but I'm not trying to suggest it's a cure-all or that it's the only issue (or solution!) when looking at how we relate to our characters.

Gordon

I find it odd that you are all viewing 'my character would' or 'my character wouldn't' as a negative thing. In my games, and the games I've played in, it's always been a wholy positive thing. Sure, the characters aren't real, but the whole point is to act like they are. By discussing 'my character would', 'my character wouldn't' we not only help keep the characters psuedo-reality consistent and workable but help the other players, and the GM, get a better concept of who, or what, the character is.

Like most other problems on the Forge, I feel we're talking about My Guy being a problem when it's a problem, not when it's functional.

The problems are coming when players feel the need to ring fence their characters from the other players & the GM. "My guy, my toy, I'll take him away..." while the GM is trying to protect "my game" from the players. Dysfunction in a can.

That, and "My guy wouldn't" can be a euphemism for any number of statements:

Don't tell me what to do
That's impossible for my character to do
I'm

really uncomfortable with that idea
That doesn't make sense
Gamist: But that puts My Guy at a disadvantage
Sim: That's out of character for My Guy
Nar: That removes My Guy's freedom of choice
My character is better than your game
[/list:u]

Some of these can be functional, but it depends on context. You need to get to asking "why" without sounding like you're challenging.

Hi all.

Jason and Peter, thanks so much for nailing down what I couldn't figure out how to say in response to Gordon's conerns.

I'm not a big fan of the "this might be a problem (even if it isn't for all) so let's not even go near it" approach to social contract management.

Gordon, the fact that you got burned in the past doesn't mean certain points of view that your burners used to justify their actions doesn't nescesarily mean that that point of view is invalid -- or shouldn't be present at the table.

Just something you might want to stew.

Christopher

Actually Gordon's perspective meshes perfectly with my own experience.  

There's alot of bad dysfunctional role playing that comes about because of habits and assumptions on how its "supposed to be".

One of those assumptions about how its supposed to be is "my guy".  "playing my character".  "Staying in character, good.  Using out of character knowledge, bad".  This is one of the most powerful false assumptions in roleplaying because its been reinforced for decades in game texts, articles, and baton passing sessions.

And its fundamentally not true.  It is not necessary to "stay in character" to have good roleplaying.  Acting on out of character knowledge is NOT bad by default etc.


Now for some the above represents a preference.  A carefully-considered, well-evaluated, conclusion-came-to preference.  Great.  Fantastic.  One can disagree with opinions, but one can't really disagree with preferences.

*BUT* and here is the big huge critical issue.  For a great many...if not MOST...of the gamers who currently adhere to the above assumptions about the "proper way to play"...they do so out of habit.  That's the way they've been taught, that's they way they've always done it.

I have zero animosity to peoples critically chosen preference.  I have great animosity to reflexively spouted dogma.  And there are lots of players out there who reflexively spout dogma.

For some of these people, like the player in Gordon's example, what it takes is simply to break the wall of assumptions by demonstrating that those assumptions ARE simply 1 approach that can be freely discarded without violating the physics of the known universe.  Once they realize there are alot of other options out there too, the real exploration of gaming can begin for them.

That's why these things are issues.  That's why I continually challenge the notions

Yup, Ralph's got it, IMO - though I actually LIKE the staying-in-character approach at times, as long as it's a chosen and agreed to approach and not just a reflexive "of course" or some overly foggy "channel your character" mumbo-jumbo.  

I agree - and have tried to include indications of this in various posts - that imagining your character as a seperate entity does NOT have to be a problem in every circumstance, and certainly maintaining an in-character perspective can be a really cool thing in RPing.  Properly considered, I LIKE this point of view at the table, and I'd only say it's invalid if it's meant as a full description of roleplaying and/or what HAS to happen.  To be honest, I thought everyone had pretty much come to an understanding about that part of the issue.

But . . . IMO, the ways in which this CAN show up as a problem are occasionally subtle, and IME they were often unconsidered by groups I've played with.  My, uh, passion here is just that the issue be considered, that the core reality that these characters are our creations and our tools to use in the wonderful, wacky process of RPGing is acknowledged.  If part of how we want to use the tool is to kinda forget that they are our creations and pretend they have an existence outside us, that's cool - but remembering is sometimes very useful too.

Allowing a problem to persist in a game because of something "the character wants" or is "doing" is just silly, IMO.  It IS perfectly legitimate for a problem to exist becasue it's important to a player that their character be x, not be forced to y, or whatever - but that's because the player is allowed to have a desired agenda for play via the charcater.  And I can negotiate the social contract with a player, look for solutions, and/or agree that there's no resolution that works for both of us and just live with the difference and/or stop playing.

I can't negotiate the social contract with a character, and I see people try and do that often.

So, perhaps that's my more precise answer to MJ's inquiry - it's a problem when social contract issues (not JUST/NECCESARILY about how someone is playing their character) fail to be negotiated between PLAYERS because the "issue" is about the CHARACTER.

Man, is that more understandable to folks?  I think we've talked a LOT about some pretty subtle diferences in understanding/opinion.  I happen to think those subtleties do have some significance, but no one (I think) disagrees about some big issues like "thinking like your charcater can be good."

Gordon

EDITED to say "not JUST/NECCESARILY about how someone is playing . . . ", and to emphasize - You can't negotiate the social contract with a character - it only exists amongst the real humans. I think that actually summarizes why, and in what circumstances "there is no character" matters.  Because, again, I think folks do try and negotiate social contract stuff as if the character were real, and that causes problems.

Quote from: ValamirThere's a lot of bad dysfunctional role playing that comes about because of habits and assumptions on how its "supposed to be".

One of those assumptions about how its supposed to be is "my guy".  "playing my character".  "Staying in character, good.  Using out of character knowledge, bad".  This is one of the most powerful false assumptions in roleplaying because its been reinforced for decades in game texts, articles, and baton passing sessions.

And its fundamentally not true.  It is not necessary to "stay in character" to have good roleplaying.  

I would agree with this.  I would add that there are other camps of how role-playing is supposed to be.  For example, I constantly see the assumption that role-playing is supposed to be all about stories.  Game texts will stridently assert that not only is this a fun game, but that fundamentally role-playing is really about storytelling -- and thus that games which don't hold this are wrong.  

The great thing to me about rgfa's Threefold and Ron's GNS is not the details of the split, but rather the realization that there are multiple facets of RPGs.  It is the questioning of assumptions which is good.  

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisSo, perhaps that's my more precise answer to MJ's inquiry - it's a problem when social contract issues (not JUST/NECCESARILY about how someone is playing their character) fail to be negotiated between PLAYERS because the "issue" is about the CHARACTER.
...
EDITED to say "not JUST/NECCESARILY about how someone is playing . . . ", and to emphasize - You can't negotiate the social contract with a character - it only exists amongst the real humans. I think that actually summarizes why, and in what circumstances "there is no character" matters.  Because, again, I think folks do try and negotiate social contract stuff as if the character were real, and that causes problems.

Maybe some examples would help here.  Let me try to describe a problem that I often see.  I often see blame being placed on people -- i.e. an argument arises over what player X is doing.  This gets into a bunch of recriminations back and forth over how X should be playing.  It often gets terribly personal and insulting because they insist that the problem is in the player.    

In my experience, what is often ignored is that this may be solvable by making a change to the in-game characters, world, or mechanics.  By suggesting or implementing a change to the character, you may avoid turning it into a personal fight.  You might say that this is treating the symptom rather than the cause -- but I would say that I'm not trying to cure a disease.  If I can set things up so that the source of friction is eliminated, then that's good enough.  Trying to cure differences among the players is difficult if not impossible.  But it may be possible to arrange a game which they both can enjoy.  

For example, suppose that Anne is upset because Bob's character is cruel and racist.  Bob might be annoyed by this, saying privately that he doesn't want to have a Disney-like whitewashing, because he enjoys the dark aspects of his character and the game in general.  What the GM might do is give Bob's PC some sort of political position where his public actions are now held up to more scrutiny.  Bob can enjoy being the secretly corrupt and racist politician, while Anne doesn't have to deal with the overt violence.  

My impression is that "characters don't exist" thinking tends to not look for this sort of solution.  Maybe that's not what you meant, though?