The Forge Archives

I've been catching up on the various threads about this whole issue of "do the characters (and presumably, game world) have any kind of existence aside from what the players decide to do moment by moment?" (such as the Who Cares? that started it all, and the Character and Our Weird Gamer Friends thread, among others.)

since I'm coming in so late on the discussion, and since I'm going to veer the discussion far away from the philosophical or psychological feel of the other threads, I figured I'd split this off by itself.

those other threads focus on philosophical issues of whether an imaginary character can be said to exist or not. although in one sense this might be a useful theoretical pondering, my main argument is that it's irrelevant. if you take a group of players pretending to be elves or cyborgs or what-have-you, it makes no difference whether the characters are just fictional tools of the players' desires or if the characters have some kind of disembodied existence in the shared imaginative space which the players use as a guideline for their decisions.

it's like the old question "how do we know this world isn't a dream?" it doesn't really matter, since the results are the same, whether it is or it isn't.

this is part of why I usually get a bit disgruntled when the "characters don't exist" slogan appears. aside from the recent threads that actually attempt to address that issue, I normally see someone say "characters don't exist" in the middle of a discussion that has nothing to do with the reality of the characters, such as the thread about relationship mechanics that preceded all of this. it seems to be more of a rhetorical device to change the subject and "score" in the discussion.

and it's frustrating in another way, as well, since the "goal" of reinforcing the idea that "the character does not exist" seems to be to remind people not to talk about what the character "did" or "wants"... which, in my mind, undermines a very useful shorthand. I think it's more useful to say "Merlin wants to do this" than "I want the imaginary character Merlin to `want' to do this".

this perhaps comes from different playstyles, for I've noticed that most of the examples being raised in the philosophical and psychological examples of players and their characters seem to be Narrativist examples -- or, at least, the characters seem to be designed with Big Moral Issues as an underlying theme.

I think it's important to remember that, although some players design characters based based on important issues in their lives as perhaps a kind of therapy, there are a lot of people who don't design characters this way at all, at least not all the time. certainly Gamist players don't: they tend to play characters they think will be effective in the current game. if they play a lot of elven wizards, it's because they are comfortable with the sort of strategies that work with an elven wizard.

similarly, most Sim players seem to either play characters from their favorite novels/movies/shows that resemble the setting in question, or play characters with the one or two features in the list of skills, advantages, or backgrounds that struck them as interesting. they read the psi rules, for example, and get a few ideas about things a telepath could do, so they want to play a telepath.

and my point, here, is that if you tell someone making these kinds of character design decisions "the character doesn't exist", they are going to look at you as if you are either insane or trying to waste time, since obviously they aren't designing the characters as if they have an independent existence.

but, on the other hand, the character *does* exist, at least in the same sense that the game itself exists, or money exists, or IBM exists. I bunch of people agree to do things a certain way and write down guidelines on paper. they follow those guidelines, and we get a feel for the internal consistency of whichever fictional entity we're talking about. we *know* it's fictional, but we also know that we agreed to play out the fiction in a certain way -- and that agreement takes precedence over personal desires, sometimes, unless we're willing to say "stop, we need to rewrite the social contract, because I don't want the character to do that". how hard the player sticks to this agreement varies with playstyle and with the rules of the social contract.

Well, for me that hits the nail on the head.

If the character "doesn't exist," why are we playing RPG's?

I'm not sure *precisely* what's going on with that--but your post brought this up for me.

Ron said this:

Quote
Therefore the fear or perception of "I must act against my character in order to 'do the story right'" is utterly unfounded in reference to successful play of any GNS stripe. It is a red herring that amounts to creating word salad, then fearing what the sentence "says."

The only sense in which this fear makes sense is when the outcomes of play are under disproportionate control by one player (often the GM), and the other players are being railroaded - which is to say, we are now talking about the realm of dysfunction rife with catch-phrases, code-phrases, and power-trips, rather then the realm of successful role-playing and having fun in the first place.

At which point I pointed out (on the thread and in PM's) that I as a player could *clearly* find my internal definition of character at odds with my preference of story--in otherwords, I'd be faced with acting in a way I found internally congruent with my character at odds with my choice of action for what I saw as an optimal story.

I'm not sure if I was clear--but I thought there was a real lack of examination of the issue at the time.*

And I think that's relevant to this thread:

One of the things that *was* said was words to the effect of "if it's not on the character sheet--or otherwise known to other people in the game it's not relevant" (a paraphrase, I no longer have the PM--and my understanding of it). I think that's a strongly Nar interpertation of character (as a vehicle for story).

I think this perception is key.

Perhaps the idea that the Sim-Nar conflict in interpretation of character existence can legitimately exist is uncomfortable? I don't know--I know that I think it's extremely relevant to the usefulness of the theory as a whole.*

I know that it's central to these threads (half the posters going "but ... character's *don't* exist" and the others going "well, self-consistent mental constructs defined as characters can certainly exist in the sense that the game itself can be said to exist--and they're referential to each other--and that seems to be enough to define a 'want for a character')--and yet it's not just thundering agreement.

Also note: That concept (the character exists/has wants) is seen as a impediment to play by some posters (and yes, there are disclaimers that it's only 'sometimes'--but it's still not seen, I think, as 'okay' if that stance *isn't* derrivied from a considered theoritical basis by everyone here).

-Marco
* The reason I was so surprised that there wasn't more discussion or (I thought) understanding of the concept was that I think the discussion was brushed off as being all-internal (i.e. not an issue between two people)--this was after I'd been (I thought) painstakingly clear to discuss how the issue *was* between player and GM and how communication on the issue could resolve it between the two of them (in fact, was required)--something that *wasn't* required for an author working solo on a novel.

i.e. a text-book/poster-boy application of GNS-based problem solving.

Edited for clarity

Well, I've been very active in those threads in saying the acceptance of the bedrock-reality that there is no character is valuable.  I'm not sure that adding another post will actualy help, but I've got one more angle to try . . .

"There is no character" is NOT shorthand for "don't act in character."  I think there's no thundering agreement beacuse people think it does mean that.  It doesn't.

It's all about remembering that "Merlin wants to do this" *is* shorthand  - and (for me) not neccessarily about directly remembering that all the time, but remembering it when it's important.

Our characters are our tools.  Pretending our characters are "real" is a tool (and quite a cool tool).  As long as a tool is serving you well, use it.  But if it's not - don't forget that it's a tool.  My experience is that people do forget, especially in a problematic moment of play (and by "problematic," I don't mean disastrous-disfunctional - just the normal stuff that happens in a social environment).  And remembering can help.

My thought is that this is true for all GNS modes, though certain styles (in various modes) may be less prone to forget than others.  But I don't think "there is no character" is a Game/Nar signifier or "the character is real" is a Sim signifier.

Gordon

Quote from: MarcoOne of the things that *was* said was words to the effect of "if it's not on the character sheet--or otherwise known to other people in the game it's not relevant" (a paraphrase, I no longer have the PM--and my understanding of it). I think that's a strongly Nar interpertation of character (as a vehicle for story).

I think this perception is key.

Aha!!  Now that I think about it, this does seem reminiscent the thread on secrets, where someone said that if a feature hasn't been shown in play, it isn't "real".  I always thought that it was a bizarre statement, but in light of this thread I think that what one thinks of as "real" may be important.  

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisOur characters are our tools.  Pretending our characters are "real" is a tool (and quite a cool tool).  As long as a tool is serving you well, use it.  But if it's not - don't forget that it's a tool.  My experience is that people do forget, especially in a problematic moment of play (and by "problematic," I don't mean disastrous-disfunctional - just the normal stuff that happens in a social environment).  And remembering can help.

First of all, this pretty clearly contradicts the "characters don't exist" statement.  If characters don't exist, then how can they be tools?  It might be useful to pretend that characters don't exist, but the truth is they do.  Ultimately, a character is a thing -- a mental construct, an imaginary thing -- but still a thing.  The world, plot, and theme are similar things.  But is character a tool?  It seems to me that by calling it a tool, that implies that inherently it is supposed to be used in a particular way or set of ways.  That seems like a weak parallel, though.  

I think that a better term is to say that a character is a toy, like a doll.  This is different than a tool because there is no right way to play with a doll.  One child might use the doll to act out stories.  Another child might use a doll just to dress in different outfits.  Another might just run around whacking things with it.  In RPGs, character, world, plot, and theme are all toys to play with.  People can use them in different ways.  For some, theme is a tool to explore character.  For others, character might be a tool to express theme.  

As for the problem, I think it could be more clearly expressed by referring to observable behavior instead of these metaphors.  As I understand it, the problem that you have is when a player refuses to change their concept of the character to improve other parts of the game, citing "That's the way my character is."  In your view, this is frequently irrational rather than a well thought-out preference.  If they agreed to change their internal view of character, games would generally improve.  

I'm still pondering how I feel about that, but it at least seems like something concrete.

John,

I'm lost as to how "a character is a created tool in the imagined game world" becomes a contradiction of character's aren't real.  Tools, dolls - the point is that they are the creation of the real people involved in play.  

My example from the other thread is one way in which forgetting this is an issue, but far from the only one.  I also don't fully agree with your characterization (no pun intended) of that example here, but I guess that's for the other thread.

My goal for posting in this thread was mostly to correct talysman's incorrect (IMO) claim/fear that the goal of "there is no character" is to get people to stop saying "Merlin wants this."  I mean, sometimes it's good not to use the words, but that's not the purpose of the whole thing.  Maybe someone ELSE (Ralph?) wants to claim that whole verbal shorthand should be abandoned, but I'm not making it.

Gordon

The Social Contract determines to the delegation of control over co-creation of the shared imagined fantasy (fantasy world). Actor stance is a useful form of play. Fortunately, however, it is only one way the fantasy world is co-created.

It is useful to go outside of the limits of actor stance to examine other forms of co-creation.

Is this what is being presented? Or is their something else I am missing? If that is the case, where is the debate?

The root of this whole back and forth that keeps getting repeated on thread after thread is IMO the intentional twisting of the obvious in an attempt to obfuscate the point.

The latest example of this is in John's post above which Gordon rightly is befuddled by.  John, I hate to be bluntly rude, but your statement is above is intolerably obfuscatory.

You are taking the statement "The character doesn't exist" to a ridiculously illogical extreme in order to try and (unsuccessfully) refute the inherent truth that the "The character does not exist".  

I point to the following quote as an especially egregious example of this.

QuoteIf characters don't exist, then how can they be tools? It might be useful to pretend that characters don't exist, but the truth is they do. Ultimately, a character is a thing -- a mental construct, an imaginary thing -- but still a thing.

It should be clear...rampantly clear in fact, that the statement "the character does not exist", means the "the character does not possess a will independent of the player".  It does not mean (and cannot reasonably be taken to mean) that there is no framework at all in which the character can be placed to aid in our understanding of it.  This is clear from the very first post that I made on the subject.

The character is a construct of the player's mind.  If one wants to play semantic games over whether this constitutes "existance" go right ahead, but its completely irrelevant to the point that the character is not an independent creature.

"I think therefor I am".  Characters don't think.  Therefor they aren't.  It is simple as that.  The only thinking, decision makeing, feeling, intuition leaping entity involved in the process is the player, and the character has no existance outside of the interior of the player's own mind.

In an RPG there is further the element of shared imaginary space in which the construct of the character can be found in the minds of ALL of the players to a greater or lesser extent.  An interesting question to pursue independently of this thread would be whether the "true character" is the one in the mind of the original portrayer, or the one that is presented through actual play as understood by other players.

In any case, the fundamental core truth to this is that characters do not possess a will of their own.  They do not possess any autonomous function at all (such as the ability to react to stimuli).  In all cases where a character seems to have such things it is nothing more than the player's portrayal of those things.  Where the inspiration for that portrayal comes from does not change the truth that it is the player doing the portrayal.


Barring the belief in supernatural entities taking possession of the human player during his portrayal of the character, I fail to see how any one can come up with a rational disagreement of this statement.

So what's the point?  If the issue really is as obvious as all of that, whats the point?  Its the same point thats been made a dozen times since these threads began.

Breaking down assumptions held by players as to what play is supposed to be and how characters are supposed to be thought of during play.

Quote from: ValamirThe root of this whole back and forth that keeps getting repeated on thread after thread is IMO the intentional twisting of the obvious in an attempt to obfuscate the point.

The latest example of this is in John's post above which Gordon rightly is befuddled by.  John, I hate to be bluntly rude, but your statement is above is intolerably obfuscatory.

I don't know about that. Maybe your suggestion that this is intentionally obfuscatory is a bleed-over from your animosity towards a position you don't think the holder has considerd sufficiently.

For one thing, characters certainly do "possess a will" outside of the players.  You can argue that they don't think--and that's true (IMO)--but they can certainly act in ways the controlling player doesn't intend.

The, again, most obvious example is when a psych limit makes you an NPC and the GM controlls your character.

You say they can't react to stimuli. That's not true either. A game system may call for reactive resolution in a number of ways--all of these are out of control and may be in opposition to the owning character (a "hair-trigger" character defect results in the character shooting an innocent who surprises him).

I think the problem is this:

You're over there going "it's just a game. There's nothing metaphysical." and I'm going, "sure--we agree--but hey, this issue is relevant and interesting *in context*--and your use of language assiduously (intentionally?) avoids that context."

But really, you can't avoid that context. The "Game" doesn't exist either. And at some level of philosophy (the level, I think that people here sometimes resort to when discussing intent and free-will and immersion) the real world can't be proven to exist.

So the only meaningful context--and the one that John is talking about is the context of "existence within the game."*

At which point the character does exist and can (depending on system) be an obstacle to a players wishes, acting--or being directed to act--in ways the player doesn't want or can't predict.

-Marco
* And I think Gordon has hit that. Telling a player "the character doesn't exist" may indeed result in some different forms of play--but the stance that "the character does exist" is one that many people find intergral to "immersion" and "consistency"--and while I've used quotes around all of these terms, the fact that Gordon is even having that conversation speaks against the cognito ergo sum stance. The player isn't shocked to find out that A) his character doesn't think or B) that pro-wrestleing is fixed.

Quote from: Marco
The, again, most obvious example is when a psych limit makes you an NPC and the GM controlls your character.

You say they can't react to stimuli. That's not true either. A game system may call for reactive resolution in a number of ways--all of these are out of control and may be in opposition to the owning character (a "hair-trigger" character defect results in the character shooting an innocent who surprises him).

Marco, this doesn't say anything to contradict my point.  How does transfering control of a character's action from one player to another (the GM) or to a random die roll in any way shape or form indicate that the character has a will outside of that of the players?  There is still no independent entity going on here no matter how many rules you throw into the game.

QuoteAt which point the character does exist and can (depending on system) be an obstacle to a players wishes, acting--or being directed to act--in ways the player doesn't want or can't predict.

But that is so not true.

Consider:

"What I the player really want is to have my character pull out a gun and shoot that SOB.  But my character would never do that, so instead I'll just walk away"

This is not the character acting in a way the player doesn't want.

This is the player deciding that what he wants is portray the character in a certain fashion MORE than he wants to shoot the SOB.  Its all still down to what the player wants and how the player chooses to portray the character (where "wants" and "chooses" includes whatever spontaneous inspirational techniques a player has developed to assist in the process).

My point wasn't that "there is an outside entity" but that that the *context* you were using to discuss the existence of the character was tautological and fairly un-engaging (one could just as easily say the game doesn't exist--at all--and where do we go then?). We visit Fang actually:

Contrast to No Myth which uses a different vocabulary and expands on it the concepts and techniques to make the point that while "the game may not be a simulation of a 'real' reality, it can be seen as a genre-piece and reflective of tropes and themes in a meaningful fashion." That's what I don't see here--I see people saying "characters don't have a metaphical existence." And that, it turns out, is unarguable (even if you think they do, you can't prove it) and news to just about no-one.

What saying "the character doesn't exist," IMO, fails to address is the case of the player who *is* playing a construct with systemic and conceptional constraints on it. Those constraints certainly can/may exist--and they can define goals or aims for the character (i.e. wants)--and simply ditching them may not be what a normal person would identify as a preference.

That all seems super obvious--and it derrivies from the fact that the character certainly exists in the game world. Which is as real as it needs to get for there to be actions on the part of the character the player doesn't want or intend (to argue otherwise is, I think, to argue that when a character in a game who suffers a humiliating defeat that was 'wanted' by the player. Ask Paul C. if that's an accurate/communicative use of English).

But that said, I'm still surprised at your example of a preference of in-character play over out-of-character play.

Specifically I'm surprised youd didn't address the case where the player says "I shoot him" and the GM says "Um--no, you got 20pts for Pacificist. You don't. You walk away--or something." And the player goes "Damn. You're right. That sucks. Okay, I walk."

That's the case that's both interesting and, IMO, relevant.

-Marco

Of course, the character is imaginary. No one disputes that, but  characters have parameters. If the character includes a detailed description, those parameters probably include extensive information about the character's personality. If the player considers these parameters and gives them top priority in the decision-making process, the player may well make decisions for the character that differ from decisions the player would make without those parameters. In that way, the character seemingly takes on a life of its own. To me, that's roleplaying. Yes, the player is always making those decisions, but those decisions are informed by parameters unique to the character, not the player. So, the player sets aside his own views in favor of the character's parameters. Yet, those parameters are still subject to the player's interpretation.

So, I agree with Ralph that the character has no independent will, but I also acknowledge that the parameters built into a character often have an impact on the decision-making process. This gives the appearance that the character has a will of its own, but the appearance is quite different from actual will. When a player says, "My character wouldn't do that," The player is not saying, "The character wouldn't do that because he is an independent being with free will and self-determination and he just told me so." Rather, the player is saying, "Based on the parameters of this character, I think this is not a course of action the character would pursue if the character were a real, sentient being. The character would not do this." Of course, it could also mean, "I as player don't want my character to do that," and without any regard for those parameters; but I'm not going there.

Anyway, someone in one of these threads suggested that the character is a fictional construct that operates in a sort of virtual machine in the brain, just as a program can run in a virtual machine in a computer. I like that analogy. It may not be wholly accurate, but it provides the right sort of image to explain the idea of character as a fictitious but influential subset of the player.

QuoteIf the player considers these parameters and gives them top priority in the decision-making process, the player may well make decisions for the character that differ from decisions the player would make without those parameters.

Yes!  That's it exactly.
IF the player considers these parameters and gives them top priority in the decision-making process*

That's it...thats the whole point.

Its not that the character has any right to be given this top priority.
Its not that good roleplaying requires giving those parameters the top priority.  
Its not that the way its supposed to be done is to give the character's parameters this top priority.*

Its because of all of the potential priorities that a player might have at that particular instance, the player chose* to allow the parameters of his character to be the deciding factor in the player's portrayal.  

Which, by extension, means the player could have chosen something else based on different priorities and had it been equally valid.  Which further means that sometimes prioritizing something else other than the character's parameters might actually make for a better game and greater enjoyment of the other participants at the table.

Which brings us back to the point I originally made about what I called "Deep Immersion".  Because Deep Immersion players refuse to acknowledge these last points and refuse to ever make choices based on priorities other than those they've assigned to their character.  Which means that frequently they will make choices that are not the best for the enjoyment of the others at the table strictly because of rigid adherence to this idea that the character's parameters must always be the player's top priority.  Which is how I concluded that such play is inherently selfish.


* Footnote:  insert appropriate caveats about the "choice", and "considering priorities" to address ChristopherK's concerns about rational vs inspired portrayals here.

Quote from: John KimIf characters don't exist, then how can they be tools?  It might be useful to pretend that characters don't exist, but the truth is they do.  Ultimately, a character is a thing -- a mental construct, an imaginary thing -- but still a thing.  The world, plot, and theme are similar things.  But is character a tool?  It seems to me that by calling it a tool, that implies that inherently it is supposed to be used in a particular way or set of ways.  That seems like a weak parallel, though.

I agree entirely that characters exist, not as people, but as tools.

Ralph, you may think that,

Quotethe statement "the character does not exist", means the "the character does not possess a will independent of the player"

but I don't think you have ever said that quite that clearly. Probably you'd have saved a lot of hassle if you had actually said that, and not, "the character does not exist". Even had you said, "the character is not a real person" I don't think we'd ever have argued this. It has not been obvious at any point that your statement was so limited as to mean, "the character does not exist in the same sense that people exist". I certainly agree that characters do not have independent thought; they are only characterized as having independent thought, and this creates internal conflicts within the player or author between "what I want the character to do now" and "how I have defined this character overall". Those are separate desires of the player that can come into conflict; the latter is perceived (and in a sense truly is) as being true to the personality, will, and values of the character, who is in that sense a real thing. The former is a desire of the moment.

John, on your concern about the concept of tools, I'm going to quote my article http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory

Quote from: where ICharacters are not really people; they are functional components of a game world which are manipulated by players to achieve goals. They are, in a word, tools. It is at this point in play that you are attempting to guide the players into designing the right tools.

Put that way, it becomes obvious that GNS considerations are very important to the question of what you are designing. If you guide the players into designing hammers, they're going to wind up with tools that are very good for hitting things; if you want them instead to write stories, you need to have them design pens. You need the right tool for the job; if you don't have it, there will be a tendency to try to make the job fit the tool.

In saying that characters are tools, we are not saying that they are all designed to do the same thing--they are all different tools, each individually designed to provide the player a specific kind of access to the game world. Toys is certainly a good alternate analogy, but I think tools, rightly understood, is useful in many applications--even this question of whether characters exist. They don't exist as people; they exist as characters, which are tools designed to have some of the qualities of people.

So, can we agree that characters do exist, but not as thinking individuals distinct from those who imagine them?

I hope so.

--M. J. Young

Edit: Cross-posted with Ralph. I think we're probably on the same page.

QuoteProbably you'd have saved a lot of hassle if you had actually said that, and not, "the character does not exist". Even had you said, "the character is not a real person" I don't think we'd ever have argued this.

And its precisely because that is a gross oversimplification that I didn't say it that way.  The response to such a statement would have been "duh, no kidding"  

But its not a "duh, no kidding" issue.  Its a very important issue that challenges many of the core assumptions about the very nature of roleplaying.  It cannot simply be dismissed as "obvious"; because its very easy to say "of course characters are not real people" and then go right back to treating them as if they were.

The player has the right to enforce his will upon his character.  The character does not have the right to enforce its will upon the player, because not being a real person, the character has no rights outside of what the player chooses for it.  The player may choose to give a voice to the character's "will" by portraying in play what the player thinks the character would do or want.  But the character has no right to expect the player to do this, and the player has no obligation to do this...because the character is not a real person and has no such rights.

This is the fundamental point of the issue, and is not one that can be understood with a simple "of course the characters aren't people" kind of response.