another take on "the character doesn't exist"

[Valamir]

delete double post

[Marco]

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.

I'm curious how you justify this in light obviously existant rules that can supercede the will of the player. I think if you (as I understood you to do) justify that by claiming the "choice to behave in a certain way" was made when the player took the qualifier (say, again, a psych-limit)  or (even, I think more tenuously) chose the game then you are entering some very sticky territory (and if you can elicidate how you see that, I'd be interested in seeing that).

But I'm even more interested in finding that you see a preference for deep immersion as selfish.  It's the tying of "deep immersion" to "won't change their preferred style to achieve community" that I think is amazing--espeically for someone who just came out with great hostilty for someone who holds a position they haven't considered closely enough.

If it's what I enjoy--then you are telling me to give up my enjoyment for yours.

That doesn't sound like a selfless request to me.

You may be holding the stance that a player who plays and enjoys a Deep Immersion style but would enjoy another just as much and doesn't change as selfish--but where is that clear or implicit?

And certainly if I change my play style because I enjoy community with you as a fellow player more than I enjoy my Deeply Immersive playstyle in opposition to your wants then I'm still being selfish--I'm just enjoying enlightened self interest. What you want is still selfish of me. It just happens to suit you.

So I think you're attributing stuff to the definition that isn't in there.

Have you had previouis bad experiences with deep imersionists?

-Marco

[Valamir]

I'm curious how you justify this in light obviously existant rules that can supercede the will of the player. I think if you (as I understood you to do) justify that by claiming the "choice to behave in a certain way" was made when the player took the qualifier (say, again, a psych-limit)  or (even, I think more tenuously) chose the game then you are entering some very sticky territory (and if you can elicidate how you see that, I'd be interested in seeing that).

I don't see it as sticky at all.  In fact, I'm having trouble beginning to understand where you're coming from.

There are only 3 possibilities here:
1) the "will" is coming from the character, which I dismiss as the character does not have the capacity for independent thought.

2) the "will" of the player, which is what I ascribe it to that you are having difficulty with.

3) the "will" of the game mechanics, which seems to be what you are asserting...but as this flies in the face of the Lumpley principle I have to dismiss this possibility as well.  After all, game mechanics are no more capable of independent thought than then character.

I don't see the players choice to abide by the rules as being representative of the player making the choice to be sticky at all.

But I'm even more interested in finding that you see a preference for deep immersion as selfish.  It's the tying of "deep immersion" to "won't change their preferred style to achieve community" that I think is amazing--

I think your difficulty here is in missing that "Deep Immersion" is a subset of immersive play that I defined in another thread where I first used the term as being unwilling to play in any other mode than fully immersed.  If you have a preference for a particular style in most instances of play. But you can acknowledge that in some other instance of play the enjoyment of all of the players collectively can be enhanced and the "story improved" by setting that preference temporarily aside, than there is no problem.

If however, your preference is paramount regardless of the above and you refuse to make any alterations to it...adhereing to it with a zealous conviction ...than yes, that is selfish behavior.

Whether, selfish behavior is inherently wrong and to be despised, I leave as a moral exercise to the reader.  I merely stated that I try to avoid playing with such players as the extent of my moral judgement of it.

espeically for someone who just came out with great hostilty for someone who holds a position they haven't considered closely enough.

I'm having trouble parsing what you mean by this.

[Cemendur]

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.

This is absolutely not true. My frequent style of play is deep immersion. However, enjoyment of the play always has the highest preference. The character can always be "developed", that is undergo changes that conform with the enjoyment of the group.  This can all be done within the context of deep immersion OR it can be done OOC (during a "break" in immersion) and brought back into deep immersion.

I also enjoy other styles of play. It depends on the game and the social contract.

[Marco]

I had bolded the passage in the text I quoted that I was addressing.

Since I didn't address it *specifically* here's the passage I conted with.

"the character has no rights outside of what the player chooses for it. "

And this is key--it's a huge piece of System Does Matter--and brings into focus how, I think, a Story-First Priority can and sometimes will conflict with an In-Character Preference--something I read Ron as saying plainly cannot in functional gaming.*

While the Lumpely principle does indeed say that someone must be running the game for the game to be run, it doesn't and will not always aportion credibility for a character's rights to the player of the character.

So don't dismiss it that fast.

And as for your definition of Deep Immersion:

1. I read that--I see what you're saying. Yes, you did define it that way.

2. Please don't let the name stick. Call it Immersion-Zealotry or whatever. Calling it Deep Immersion is horribly misleading.

3. It's circular (as Mike said)--which doesn't make for much discussion but:

[as for the part you had difficulty parsing]
You say you "merely avoid playing with such players as the extent of your moral judgement"--but earlier you did say you harbored "great animosity" towards those who professed dogmatic beliefs.

-Marco
* since I'm obviously having a hard time following his feelings on that issue, I will say that I *did* read that he seemed a few posts after that to say "it can't happen or at least not uniquely to roleplaying." Which, of course, discounts all the dynamic material in RPGs (no author-style re-writes, the often-present randomizers, asymmetic input from other people, etc.) which make RPG's an exercise in community way beoynd even collaberative writing and certainly in some ways different from other media where an author might choose between a certain consistency for a character and a preference for a kind of story.

[Alan]

Let me throw my 2 cents on here.

Here's my model:

1. No supernatural or jungian or platonian transcendant entities exist.  The only "life" a fantasy has is as part of a shared culture, ie information transfered between individuals.

2.  Characters are produced by the imagination of the player playing it, and enhanced or experienced by the other players at the table.

3.  The player is the agent which imagines himself as the character, then decides what the character would do.  

4. All humans routinely switch from role to role, making decisions within the context of a social situation as they percieve it.  A role-playing game, and a character in particular, have several different contexts in which the player makes decisions.

There's nothing mysterious about characters "having a life of their own" - this is just the natural perception of the player when he or she views an in-context decision he just made from _outside_ that context.

The fascination with this subject may be that it reveals that we are each of us a multitude, though we think we are one.

[Eric J-D]

This has been an interesting series of threads to read, but I think that some of us have forgotten that Ralph's statement "the character does not exist," clearly shorthand for "the character does not have an existence and will independent of the player," was made in an effort to:

1. disabuse people of the notion that Actor Stance (sometimes called Deep Immersion) is the only legitimate way in which play can be conducted.  (NB--an idea that one encounters repeatedly in many gaming products, which frequently encourage players to develop such an understanding.)

and

2. draw attention to the ways in which such play can (note: "can" not "must") rapidly become dysfunctional.

If you are fortunate enough not to have experienced how "my guy" play can quickly become a big bag of flaming shite left on your doorstep then I congratulate you.  Sadly for some, this experience is all too common and familiar.

Now, I think we need to keep in mind that there may be cases where "my guy" behavior is a form of resistance to other kinds of dysfunction that may exist within the group.  For instance, it may be a way of resisting some fairly egregious railroading or a passive-agressive response to GM favoritism or whatever.

Nevertheless, these were not the exceptions that Ralph was dealing with.  He was simply trying to address the problem of players who routinely assert that their character "wouldn't do that" or "wants to do X as opposed to Y" as a way of avoiding taking player responsibility for that character.  This isn't a rare occurence by a long shot.  I hear writers spout this nonsense all the time.  In fact, one writer friend once informed me that he abandoned the novel he was working on because his main character refused to do something that he, the author, wanted him to do.  Needless to say I didn't know whether to laugh out loud or look behind me for a big fucking Indian and a nurse with a name like a common mechanic's tool.

When a player or an author commits to that level of character autonomy it begins to seriously impede the attainment of something far richer and more rewarding.  In a reversal of the familiar expression "the best is the enemy of the good," here a good (Actor Stance or Deep Immersion or "getting into character" or whatever else you want to call it) becomes the enemy of the better (the co-creation of collectively satisfying play or, in the case of my writer friend, the completion of a novel rather than the mere creation of an interesting character).

Just my $.02

Eric

[Valamir]

Alan, that's pretty much the way I see it.

Eric.  Thanks for the summation.  You captured my points precisely.  Since this is the first time I recall the issue being discussed so deeply (or discussed at all for quite some time) it is understandable that we're all thrashing about abit trying to figure out how best to discuss the idea.  Alot of the posts on these threads have just been primarily to try and understand and elaborate on the boundaries of the positions.  I'm glad that in all of my own flailing about, my key points were at least understandable.

[John Kim]

If you are fortunate enough not to have experienced how "my guy" play can quickly become a big bag of flaming shite left on your doorstep then I congratulate you.  Sadly for some, this experience is all too common and familiar.  

Well, no, I haven't had any such experience.  I discussed this with Gordon in the other thread.   To me, It would be much more helpful if you talked about actual problems which you have experienced.  For one, it isn't clear to me exactly what "my guy" play refers to, since I have seen the term used in contradictory ways.  Now, maybe it is random luck that I haven't had these problems.  However, I would also consider the possibility that there are other causes at work here.  

I think it would help to talk about actual problems and observable behaviors, rather than philosophical questions about existance.  As it stands, I can't tell if I am one of the "my guy" types that you are complaining about.  

(Ralph) was simply trying to address the problem of players who routinely assert that their character "wouldn't do that" or "wants to do X as opposed to Y" as a way of avoiding taking player responsibility for that character.  This isn't a rare occurence by a long shot.  I hear writers spout this nonsense all the time.  In fact, one writer friend once informed me that he abandoned the novel he was working on because his main character refused to do something that he, the author, wanted him to do.  Needless to say I didn't know whether to laugh out loud or look behind me for a big fucking Indian and a nurse with a name like a common mechanic's tool.  

When a player or an author commits to that level of character autonomy it begins to seriously impede the attainment of something far richer and more rewarding.  

OK, you've lost me here on the author point.  For example, Ursula Le Guin is an author who commits to this, and I love her work.  I'll quote her talking about her novel The Farthest Shore, from her essay "Dreams Must Explain Themselves"

In any case I had little choice about the subject.  Ged, who was always very strong-minded, always saying things that surprised me and doing things he wasn't supposed to do, took over completely in this book.  He was determined to show me how his life must end, and why.  I tried to keep up with him, but he was always ahead.

The whole of this essay describes this approach.  (It is included in the book The Language of the Night, from Perigee Books.)  Now, maybe you don't like Le Guin.  That's fine, but I would argue it is a matter of taste.  There are people who like the results of her approach, and I think it is a valid preference.

[Marco]

I hear writers spout this nonsense all the time.  In fact, one writer friend once informed me that he abandoned the novel he was working on because his main character refused to do something that he, the author, wanted him to do.  Needless to say I didn't know whether to laugh out loud or look behind me for a big fucking Indian and a nurse with a name like a common mechanic's tool.

Eric

I do understand what you're trying to say here--and I *think* I understand the dysfunctional case--but like John, I'd like to see more examples.

However: I think someting major is being missed.

In the example of your writer friend:

1. Suppose he'd said "I've written myself into a corner. I can't figure a good way to proceede without changing the character--and I'm not satisfied with any of my ideas for redefinition." Would you consider him a kook then? (This is one interpertation of 'what he really meant'--consider that when discussing the 'shorthand' of the discussion--shorthand can be ill-chosen and misleading or clear and meaningful just like anything else).

2. What if he'd said "Well, my main character Ragnar died fighting the dragon--so that chapter was a lost cause--but then Boron the thief was supposed to just sneak into the palace and *talk* to the princess but he's a compulsive stealer and I couldn't have him not take some valuables--and I really wasn't happy with how it came out--but I *couldn't* re-write it."

Then yes, you might look at him *strangely.*

After all, how could an author just lose a character to a dragon? How could a character be compelled to act some way the author didn't intend? And of course, what kind of author can't simply re-write a chapter.

I think the answer and the difference is pretty clear. And this difference is what I was addressing in regard's to Ralphs statement (he invoked Lumpley--but as I'd been *considering* invoking that principle previously in *my* post, I don't see how it resolves anything.

In rpgs--at least in some--and to varying degrees the character does not have full authority/responsibility for the character.*

-Marco
* And it's (IMO) games like Age of Heroes that give you more responsibility and control than games with rules for dictating behavior.

[Alan]

After all, how could an author just lose a character to a dragon? How could a character be compelled to act some way the author didn't intend? And of course, what kind of author can't simply re-write a chapter.

But the author _did_ intend that the character act that way.  An author who says he can't change what a character did is just prioritizing "character verite" over his story and is perhaps in denial about that.  

Anyway, writing a novel is a process strangly like playing Universalis: one follows the logic of the material at hand, while at the same time steering it to some vision.  Often the consequences of the interaction of all the elements don't become clear until the section where it happens.  I think writers are often surprised by things they write.  I am.  But I've come to realize that I just can't see the consequences of everything in advance planning.  Much of the creation occurs in the process itself.

In this sense, writing fiction is like carving a sculpture: you start with a vision, but, as you work, the nature of the material suggests details, or even major changes.  A role-playing session has a similar dynamic.

[Marco]

I wasn't being clear enough--my fault. Sorry. In the second case that was the results of RPG play which can be unpredictable, dictated by game-rules, or over-ridden by other participants (unlike, as you suggest--and leaving the method-writing approach aside) an RPG.

If I told you my character died in an RPG and his story unexpectedly didn't continue you wouldn't think I was destined for the psych-ward.

-Marco

[contracycle]

How on earth did Immersion become identified as Actor stance?  This football has now been booted all over the place.

[simon_hibbs]

Interesting set of threads this, and a lot of talking past each other going on. I'd just like to throw some observations into the mix.

First of all we all agree characetrs do exist in some sense, the real question seems to be concerning the independence of their mental state and behaviour in the game.

Does Shakespear's 'The Tempest' exist? It contains imaginary characters in an imaginary place, it is entirely fictional yet it clearly exists as a work of art. Shakespear is dead, yet we can all read about Puck and discuss the character's behaviour and attitudes. This level of existence of roleplaying game characters does not seem to be in dispute.

As before, Puck is a character that has been played by thousands of actors, each of them interpreting the character differently and presenting it in a skightly different way, yet they are all playing Puck. The attitudes and beliefs of puck can be discussed just as the attitudes and beliefs of any person can be discussed. However we can't actualy ask puck what he thinks, or how he feels about things any more than we can do the same of Napoleon Bonaparte (without visiting the local mental assylum, at any rate). Therefore Puck does not exist as a person, we can only discuss his motives and attitudes through aprocess of interpretation.

Roleplaying games do offer an extra dimension to our characters that shakespear did not have available when creatign his. We can assign them quantified mental attributes. In Pendragon our characetrs have traits and passions that describe their lustfullnes and chastity, generosity and selfishness, or their loyalty to the king. It is true that as the characetrs creator and player we get to determine the character's initial pshychological attributes. the change during play in response to the way we play the character, but they allso feed back into the way we play the character. If I choose do develop the character's loyalty to the king, what happens if the king makes demands that I as player do not think my characetr would like to perform, and which I would prefer the character to ignore? Yet I have made the character's loyalty a defining attribute!

I',m sure it would be possible to go a step further and develop a more sophisticated game mechanical model for the psychological states of our characters. In Call of Cthulhu the Sanity attribute can make our characetrs go mad whether we like it or not. In 'My Life With Master' our characters can be compelled to actions we deplore and we might dearly wish we could avoid the character having to perform, yet in that game we clearly are not in complete controll of our characters.

So do characetrs in My Life With Master have more of an independent existance than a Traveller character? More than a D&D character with an Alignment? More than a Pendragon character with a range of psychological attributes?

To what extent are they mere expressions of our creative energies, or external constructs with a life of their own?

It... lives!?


Simon Hibbs

[Christopher Weeks]

To what extent are they mere expressions of our creative energies, or external constructs with a life of their own?

Or internal constructs with a life of their own?

I don't want to defend this notion because it is wildly speculative and I see no significant evidence to support it (though I do think it's interesting how zealously the notion is discarded).  But I would still point to the possibility that a player uses part of his brain in character portrayal that he doesn't normally use in day-to-day operation of "self."  And if this were true, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the character does have some kind of mental state independent of the player.  This is particularly so if we find that the brain segment is not only generally in disuse, but completely inaccessible to "self."

Does this idea make people uncomfortable, or do they just find no value in such wild speculation?

Chris