Inviolate characters: The Security Blanket

[TonyLB]

There's been a fair amount of talk here, recently, about how important it is to some people that their character is inviolate ... that nobody else can get inside of the skin, and make things happen.  A fair amount of hyperbole has been employed, indicating that any other course will be the downfall of western civilization, and so on and so forth ... but in the end, the answer always seems to come down to "I don't want my character to be vulnerable!  It makes me feel very uncomfortable."

To which I can only reply "Okay ... I felt uncomfortable the first time too.  You won't get over that discomfort by avoiding the situation."  Like taking the training wheels off your bike, or opening your eyes underwater, surrendering some control over your character is a scary step that opens up spectacular new horizons.

When your character is inviolable you cannot defend it, any more than you can defend the stars.  There is no adversity against which it needs defending.  Nobody can possibly harm the soul of the character in any way, and so you (the player) cannot stand up for the soul of the character in any way.  That is why you find so many pimply teens who will eagerly explain their character's Staff of the Arch-Uber-Hyper-Magi, but who cannot for the life of them tell you who the character loves, or what he believes.  Quite simply, they worked for the Staff.  They, the players, were involved and invested in gaining and defending it.  They didn't work for the character's loves or beliefs ... and so they aren't invested.  They do not care, any more than they care about his height or his hair color or any other thing that they get for free.

By comparison, I can tell you volumes about what every one of my Capes characters believes, and who they love, and why they do what they do ... because I've had to fight tooth and nail to defend my assertion that they think that way.  The other players, my worthy and beloved adversaries, have given me an incomparable opportunity:  they have let me work to define my character.  They have made me fight to prove that Zak is hopeful, they have made me defend the claim that Vanessa is heartless, they have made me prove that Gangbuster will never give in.  And because I have worked at these things, they are more real to me.  They are not just words on paper, or notions in my head, they are the actual outcomes of my actual efforts, tested and solid.

This is not just a matter of preference.  I reject the argument that people who want to avoid ever facing this discomfort are just as good as those who embrace it.  They're not.  Knowing that you can handle playing a vulnerable character expands your horizons.  You get to do all the things you did back when you thought you were too weak to defend your character, and a whole bunch of new things as well.  You get to do more.  Learning to do this makes you a better player.

I am saddened when I see people elevate their discomfort and, yes, fear to the level of a philosophy.  It is an elaborate defense mechanism, and the only thing it does is to prevent them from growing and developing as people and as gamers. 

The inviolable character is like Dumbo's magic feather, Linus's security blanket.  It is the magic token people count on to keep them safe, because they don't believe they have the power to be safe themselves.  It is the mark of someone who has yet to come to grips with how strong he or she can be.  It is the mark of a child.  I firmly believe that gamers benefit when they summon their courage and face the world without it.

[Sindyr]

I know that what I am going to add will astound most of you - and will probably astonish Tony the most.

I couldn't disagree more with the "opinion" stated in the first post on this thread.

Long before Capes I have been familiar with the type of person who's method of teaching someone to swim is to throw them into the ocean.  People who think they know what's best for everyone else.  People who think that if it's right for them, it's right for everyone.   Truthfully, those people sicken me a little.

These people may have been exposed to brutal disillusionment at some point in their past.  Perhaps they have become too afraid to enjoy good escapist fun because when they return to real life, they fear that they will be too defenseless to endure it.

At the root of it, I do think fear is somehow involved.  No, not my fear, the fear at the root of those that try to coerce and bully people who make different choices than they do.  The fear that maybe, just maybe, one is not better than everyone else, merely different.

People who think that there is only one right way to be, that it is more important to conform to this assumed standard than it is to have fun in a game - well, it's clear to me - and hopefully others - that something is sadly amiss when someone tries to push a philosophical agenda and devalues the main goal we have for playing a game - to have fun.

I am not going to tell anyone how to enjoy their life, or how best to live it.  I can tell you what works best for me, but I cannot tell you what works best for you.  For example, I might say that I find belief in the supernatural including theism (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, etc) to be irrational, and that I think that rational behavior has a better chance long term from affording one success and happiness in life.

I may even be able to prove that believing in god is irrational.  But what I cannot do is prove that one is wrong for doing so.  No one can.

There's a spectrum that runs from tolerant/compassionate to intolerant/judgemental.  Most people tend to cluster near one end or another.

Those that cluster near intolerant/judgmental seem to me to be defective and/or damaged human beings.  They seem to be broken and/or hurt, and in need of help.

Unfortunately, these same people seem also to be lashing out, coercing and bullying anyone that shines a light onto their symptoms.

Ultimately, that is all that is going on here, I believe.  Anyways that's my opinion.  I think it takes a special kind of openness, a special kind of courage to accept that other people's ways are not our own and that that in and of itself is not wrong.

Again, ultimately, the only relevant questions are, what are your results, and are you happy with them?

Well, the most recent time I played Capes, we permitted each player to fully own their characters, to be the sole author of what their characters thinks, values, chooses.  And we accomplished the goal.  We all had a lot of fun.

I don't know why anyone would find that a bad thing - unless their goal considers the fun we have irrelevant to some other, perhaps less laudable goal that they have for me.

Well, I will choose my own goals.  Don't blame your disappointment on me if my choices are different from the ones you would have me make. Instead, re-examine whether or not it is even valid to try to usurp other people's rights in such a way.

It isn't.

[jburneko]

Hey Tony,

I've some thoughts on this.  A lot of which stem from discussions with my wife.  My wife has a lot of problems with Capes, one of them being this issue.  But I think her issue with it is different from that of Sindyr or the other "security blanket" types.  See if she creates a character she percieves as, "heartless" then she is already from that very moment of creation looking forward to the day when the character shows compassion.  So, you see, she's not interested in defending  the "heartless" characteristic of the character, she's interested in finding the moment of compassion.  To her, thowing down the Goal: X displays compassion for Y, feels forced.  She doesn't want to fight it because she's invested in that potential moment of compassion, but she doesn't want it to be forced out of her either.  It's not fear.  It's a sense of akwardness.

For example, in our Dogs game she had no problem with the Stakes being set as, "her character comes to distrust her fellow dogs." Because things were already a little wonky between the Dogs and the town in general seemed to be about disunity and a ton of other little factors that meant for her, "Yes, now is the time this may or may not come to pass."  But the shockingly untimed confrontational way this kind of stuff can come out of the blue in Capes just doesn't work for her.

Now, me, on the other hand.  My character concepts are fixed.  If I percieve my character as being, "a moody bastard" by god that's how he is and nothing will ever change that.  The only way my character is going to change is if another player says, "God damnit, Jesse, it's time your character shows a little sensativity!" and throws out a goal of somekind and yes, I will fight that fucker tooth and nail.  But I'm also cool with losing for two reasons:

1) Nothing in Capes is permanent.  Just because my character, in this situation, at this moment, has a moment of sensativity, doesn't mean he's on a path of permanent change.  It can be written off, by me, as a "moment of weakness."

2) This is exactly how it works in comics.  Character change in comics is always HIGHLY local to the specific situation and rarely sweeping in nature.  There are no "first steps down a longer path" in comics, only flash-in-the-pan moments of revelation.  I never want to pick up a Batman comic and discover that somehow Batman has become a sensative, well adjusted individual who treats his fellow Gotham vigilantes like equals.  But!  If a story is all about how Batman treats Robin badly, then I'll relish the moment when Batman realizes, "Oh god, I've treated Robin so badly and now he's in danger because of it."  So long as Batman goes back to treating Robin badly in the next story or at least a few stories down the line. :)

Jesse

[TonyLB]

For example, in our Dogs game she had no problem with the Stakes being set as, "her character comes to distrust her fellow dogs." Because things were already a little wonky between the Dogs and the town in general seemed to be about disunity and a ton of other little factors that meant for her, "Yes, now is the time this may or may not come to pass."  But the shockingly untimed confrontational way this kind of stuff can come out of the blue in Capes just doesn't work for her.

Honestly?  I'm with your wife on this.  Capes mechanics don't regulate issues of pacing and story evolution.  Lots of other stuff it does well, this it doesn't.  So, basically, the pacing is going to be resolved outside of the rules, because the rules don't pattern it.

And, just to be clear:  I have no objections to people who know that they can play inviolate or vulnerable and choose to play inviolate for whatever reason.  If you know that the magic feather is just a feather, but it's a jaunty feather, who's gonna object?  I got no objection to a spiffy looking feather, just to the delusional reliance on it.

[TonyLB]

I couldn't disagree more with the "opinion" stated in the first post on this thread.

Y'know what really made me laugh about that whole post?  You said that ... but then you didn't disagree with anything I said.  Instead you pulled out Standard Diatribe #5, and ran through it with gusto.  And, yeah, I get that you're emotionally invested, but ... see if you were actually disagreeing with me then your counter-argument would make sense in the context of my opinion.

But, hey, let's try a fun and revelatory exercise!  Everyone, pretend that I'd argued one of the following:

• "RPGs are more fun when you play with hot, home-cooked snacks ... but some people are just too afraid to try cooking things at home.  Those people are being silly."
• "Sex is more fun between partners who know and respect each other, but some people let their fear of commitment keep them from discovering that.  Those people are being childish."
• "Capes play works perfectly well without physical violence, but some people fear that if they don't get to lash their players with a cat-o'-nine-tails they won't be able to make a good story.  Those people are clinging to whippings out of fear of the unknown."

... now the fun part.  Go back and read Sindyr's rebuttal.  Isn't that a pointed, passionate rebuttal of whichever position you chose?  Of any position?

Sindyr is running an absolutely generic objection script.  It doesn't object to any particular opinion.  It objects to the concept of having an opinion.  It objects, across the board, to any value judgment on human behavior.  It is a bunch of hot air wrapped around a core message of "Shut up!  You aren't allowed to have an opinion!  Only I am allowed to have an opinion!"

Isn't that a hoot?  It'd be sort of interesting to go back through his objections in other threads, and see how many of them boil down to exactly the same thing.

[Valamir]

[cross posted with Tony]


Sindyr, your rant has so absolutely nothing to do with anything Tony just said that I wonder if you even bothered to read what he wrote...if so you clearly fumbled your Reading Comprehension skill check.

Tony is saying the following:

If your character has a strongly held belief, that belief is worth fighting for.
If you, as the player, are never able to fight for that belief, then you, as a player, are never able to demonstrate that your character believes it to be worth fighting for.
Therefore, other players who force you to fight for your beliefs are actually performing a service by allowing you to demonstrate how strongly your character cares about that belief.

Anyone can write "believes violence is never the solution" on their character sheet.  But unless some other player is challenging you to ante up to that belief..."even now?"..."even in THIS situation?"..."What about NOW?" then that character trait is just so much word salad completely lacking meaning or depth.  In most games its the GM whose job it is to provide that level of challenge.  In Capes et.al. any player can take on that role.  

Any basic writing class will tell you that its better to SHOW your character's belief than tell them.  That's what Capes does.  It forces you to show.  It forces you to ante up and put your money where your mouth is.  How far are you the player willing to go to prove that the character believes "violence is never the solution"...This Far?  Will you go That far?  

This has nothing to do with bullying or any other such nonsense.  Its what any good GM should be doing anyway. That's the GMs job...create conflicts that the player's care about. To do that you find out what the player cares most about their character and then you try to take that away.  That's called good GMing.

Not doing that is just creating pages of rambling, non dramatically interesting narrative.  At best its masturbatory interactive day dreaming.  At worst its pissing around with zilchplay.  Either way it might be fun...but its not quality roleplaying.  And no...that's not being judgemental in the sense of intolerant.  Its being judgemental in the sense of discriminating.  Unfortuneatly, certain folks have forgotten that being discriminating is a GOOD thing.

Capes puts some fairly straight jacketed mechanics around these issues. This 1) eliminates the need for a GM, 2) makes the rules as arbitrary (in the true definition of that word as unbiased) as possible, and 3) makes a game with actual strategy to it.   One can debate how effectively these mechanics accomplish this.  One can discuss whether there aren't other better ways of accomplishing it.  But one can't say that its some form of bullying.

Tony's point is that insisting on a security blanket is actually doing YOURSELF a diservice.  Instead of protecting what you care most about your relagating what should be the most important Trait of your character to meaningless divel and obscurity.  Nobody cares about the words written on your character sheet.  What they care about is how you demonstrate those words in actual play.  And the only way you can meaningfully demonstrate those words in actual play is if someone forces you to fight for them.  If noone can force you to fight for them then you can never demonstrate them in a meaningful dramatically interesting fashion.  If you can't demonstrate them in a meaningful dramatically interesting fashion...then they're pointless garbage that no one will care about.

What Capes does differently than most games is that it doesn't let you hide behind the character.  It forces you to defend those beliefs not just by representing how badly your character wants to defend them...but by representing how badly you the player wants to defend them on behalf of your character.  In otherwords, it takes things to the meta level.

Now some people may have a personal preference for defending their character's beliefs from behind the character's own eyes, rather than as a player pulling the character's strings.  I think that's where folks find the rules the most jarring...it isn't my character Dudley DoGooder who fights for his belief that "violence is never the answer"...its me the player who fights for my belief that "Dudley believes violence is never the answer".  Its a mental shift that takes some getting used to.

Here's the kicker though...its ALWAYS me the player who fights for my belief in Dudley's belief...regardless of what game I'm playing from the most strictly actor stance old school RPG to the deepist immersionist LARP.  Its ALWAYS me the player doing the fighting.  Some folks like to fool themselves with such meaningless nonsense as "that's what my character would do" but the reality is characters are fiction, people are real.  Capes doesn't let you hide.  Capes forces one to come face to face with the fact that its you the player fighting for the character not the character fighting for themself.

[jburneko]

Ralph,

To be fair, it's possible to threaten or question a character's world philosophy without playing puppet master with the character.  However, when you combine totally external adversity with taboo adversity THEN you have a problem.  Sure, it's easy to "never resort to violence," if rape, torture and murder are off the table.

Jesse

[Sindyr]

OK, I see that neither of you guys are getting it (or that I am posting in a language significantly different than either of your are reading).  Will try to find some time tomorrow to address that.

Before I do, I will ask that any sincere dicusser re read what I wrote.  I spent a significant amount of time and effort on it.

Frankly, I am wondering if those who, 47 rounds later, claim to still not get it are either suffering from a blind spot and they *can't* get it, or are simplying lying/using debate tactics in a non sincere attempt at college debate, not discussion.

We will see.

I am pretty sure that Tony is probably suffering from one of the 2 issues above, but Valamir - do you not see what I am saying? At all?  Not asking you if you agree with it mind you, just asking if I have completely failed to communicate my position and why I hold that position?

Thanks

[Sindyr]

I couldn't disagree more with the "opinion" stated in the first post on this thread.

Y'know what really made me laugh about that whole post?  You said that ... but then you didn't disagree with anything I said.  Instead you pulled out Standard Diatribe #5, and ran through it with gusto.  And, yeah, I get that you're emotionally invested, but ... see if you were actually disagreeing with me then your counter-argument would make sense in the context of my opinion.

But, hey, let's try a fun and revelatory exercise!  Everyone, pretend that I'd argued one of the following:

• "RPGs are more fun when you play with hot, home-cooked snacks ... but some people are just too afraid to try cooking things at home.  Those people are being silly."
• "Sex is more fun between partners who know and respect each other, but some people let their fear of commitment keep them from discovering that.  Those people are being childish."
• "Capes play works perfectly well without physical violence, but some people fear that if they don't get to lash their players with a cat-o'-nine-tails they won't be able to make a good story.  Those people are clinging to whippings out of fear of the unknown."

... now the fun part.  Go back and read Sindyr's rebuttal.  Isn't that a pointed, passionate rebuttal of whichever position you chose?  Of any position?

Sindyr is running an absolutely generic objection script.  It doesn't object to any particular opinion.  It objects to the concept of having an opinion.  It objects, across the board, to any value judgment on human behavior.  It is a bunch of hot air wrapped around a core message of "Shut up!  You aren't allowed to have an opinion!  Only I am allowed to have an opinion!"

Isn't that a hoot?  It'd be sort of interesting to go back through his objections in other threads, and see how many of them boil down to exactly the same thing.

All the above basically boils to you saying to me "Sindyr, I don't get it.", as far as I can see.

To which I have to ask, do you want to? Are you even trying? At all?

[Glendower]

This one's to Sindyr.

From pretty much day one of you coming to Muse of Fire Forums, you've essentially challenged the fundamentals of Capes gameplay.  You've gotten under the skin of a lot of people here, including myself.  You've done this and generated page after page of debate, comments, and the occasional impassioned speech. 

Thanks!  Makes for great reading.

You've made people uncomfortable by challenging what they think is an excellent system and even way of thinking, enough to speak out and make their point of view heard.  And even though people have made you uncomfortable in the process, enough to get quite vocal, you've come back, again and again, to post more.  Because no matter what, conflict is interesting.  Personal beliefs being tested are interesting.

Don't you see?  Interpersonal conflict regarding personal opinion, personal beliefs, generates interesting dialogue!  And interesting, challenging, maybe even uncomfortable dialogue is FUN.  Otherwise we'd be ecstatic about taking about weather conditions all day, and this entire conflict on the boards wouldn't exist! 

Therefore, when you roleplay, which is dialogue and funny shaped dice (or cards, or nothing) there is fun to be had in challenging your belief structure.  You rattle the cage a little, get out of the comfort zone,  and you have your beliefs survive and thrive.

You're doing this right now.  You talk about avoiding anything having to do with pushing your personal boundaries, yet you keep posting here, where those personal boundaries are getting pushed!  And you're pushing back! 

This is either irony or a breakthrough.  I can't tell which. 

[jburneko]

Hello Sindyr,

Let's say there's an activity.  It doesn't matter what it is.  And let's say a person engaged in the activity says that they enjoy doing it.  Let's also say that no outside people are in anyway harmed by this activity.

Okay, now I say, "This activity is a form of illness."

Do you see the difference between these two attempts at counter argument:

Counter Argument 1: "You're not allowed to say this activity is an illness."
Counter Argument 2: "That activity isn't an illness because of reason X, Y and Z."  Where X, Y and Z are none of the things I've already stipulated above.

I think most of use are looking for Counter Argument 2 and you keep giving us Counter Argument 1.

Jesse

[greyorm]

Sindyr,

Your argument, no matter how much time you have put into it, boils down to "don't you dare say anything bad about my father's alcoholism because I love him and you're really the one with the problem for being so judgemental of him!"

There are problems and behaviors in this world that one can not simply dance around with bunnies and butterflies, chanting "everybody is just great and we're all so different {love!}". Turtling behind the concept of character inviobility, behind the idea that allowing anyone to alter or have a say about your character can not possibly be any fun and is -- IS -- game-breaking and destructive is one of those problems that has nothing to do with preference and choices.

Yes, some people do not find the vulnerable choice to be fun. No argument. But some people, in fact (given human nature) most people, use that as an excuse. It is an easy out, an easy dodge to avoid something they don't want to have to deal with, not because they know it won't be fun but because they suspect or feel it will not be and thus regardless of whether or not that avoidance is rational or based on honest experience with it. Those are the people Tony is obviously taking issue with.

My kids use a similar trick to this at the dinner table all the time:
~ "Eww. That looks gross. I don't like it."
~ "You haven't even tried any yet. Try some and see if you like it."
~ "No! It's gross and icky! I won't eat ANY because I don't like it!"

Adults get very good milage out of this trick as well, they just tend to hide the poor logic better. So I am sorry if you consider me to be a broken, damaged human being lashing out and in need of help when I make them eat their vegetables and argue their verbal "I don't like it" trickery is nonsense, or that my doing so is the equivalent of "throwing someone who can't swim into the ocean". I call that fucking ridiculous and pretty poor logic to boot.

Now, maybe you can provide a reasoned argument regarding why character inviobility is a good thing in play with specific examples of why it is a good thing, rather than the standard Western "Everybody's OK but judgement is not" hyperbolic argument above, and any attendant defense of that argument (particularly: everyone else simply has to read it a few more times and they will understand its truth).

Because, really, seriously, I AGREE that for some people character-ownership is an important component of the fun and that calling nonsense about their not finding it fun to be narrow-minded. It is the various presented arguments against character-ownership, however, that display not "I do not find that fun" but "I am terrified at the mere suggestion" where I agree fully with Tony's sentiments and statements.

[Valamir]

Valamir - do you not see what I am saying? At all?  Not asking you if you agree with it mind you, just asking if I have completely failed to communicate my position and why I hold that position?

I'll post only because you asked me to.

I see what you're saying in the sense that I understand the gramatical structure of your sentences and comprehend the sentiment that you're expressing, yes.

What I don't see is how that has anything at all to do with anything Tony (or subsequently I) wrote.  Because fact is, it doesn't.  

Nothing Tony wrote equates to bullying.  Nothing he wrote equates to intolerance.  In the world of logical arguement we call that a strawman.  Tony said "A", you pretend he said "B" and then you launch into a passionate rebuttal of "B".

We're pretty adept at catching that and calling people out on it around here.


But I'll tell you what...Glendover made the most profound observation of this entire thread.

Consider Tony's initial post in this thread to be the forum equivelent of slapping down a "prove my point" goal...just look to what lengths you're willing to go to to make sure he doesn't win that goal.  Look at how many other people are jumping in to roll up or roll down one side or the other.  Why are you participating in this thread?  Why are you vested enough to spend "a significant amount of time and effort" on it?  

Because the goal strikes at something important to you.  Important enough to get you involved.  AND in so doing you get to demonstrate your own personal world view.  By making this thread Tony has essentially given you the arena in which to show everybody else exactly where you stand.  Can you see how without this challenge there would be no opportunity for you to get on your soapbox?  Or rather, you could...but there would be no audience and no one would care.

If Tony simply said "Sindyr has his own thing and I'm not going to tell him what works best for him" then you would have no opportunity to explain what actually works best for you.  By challenging you, he's given you the opportunity to express your point of view in a way and to an audience that otherwise would not have been available to you.

Can you see how Capes works EXACTLY the same way?  If the other players simply allow you to have your safe zone without challenging you, that's not helping you...that's denying you the opportunity to express yourself.

My saying "you're wrong" isn't a personal attack or a horrible affront.  Its giving you the oportunity to say "no I'm right and here's why".  Being safe and "non-judgemental" and being unwilling to say "you're wrong"  isn't respecting your opinion.  Its denying you the opportunity to express it by being completely indifferent to it.  

Indifference is a far far worse thing than disagreement.  Not caring about your important thing is a far far worse thing than trying to take your important thing away.  Trying to take your important thing away allows you to make a statement about that important thing which we will all hear.  That's not hurting you or being disrespectful to your wishes.  That's HELPING you by saying...yes...that thing is important to us too and we want to hear what you have to say about it...and here's a dramatically interesting situation for you to say it in.


Can you see where I'm going here?

[Eetu]

Sindyr, I've also kept an eye on all these discussions all this time, and want to give my view on what's happening, and why I think it falls on you to break the cycle.

Both sides have been talking past each other of essentially different things. I guess we're doing this because the whole dialogue started with this fundamental new exciting revelation wrt roleplaying in Capes that we think you don't get. And people stick to explaining that. And what you're arguing may be related, but is not core to that issue, so we're not engaging with discussing that. If you really want more to discuss what you're saying, separate it completely from the original context.

Here, in this thread, I think Tony tried to do this whole discussion a great favor by regrounding it straight to the original issue with a completely fresh start, and even not directly addressing to you (because other peoples need this revelation, too).

Now, in all those almost a dozen threads, many many people (myself included) have tried to disclose this original issue to you, but I've never seen you really take it into consideration. Please, do try to consider it without any preconceptions, try to think what "getting unsafe" could give someone (if not you), and state that you do understand what we're trying to say.

After that you can say "Yes, I agree that getting unsafe has these benefits, but don't you agree that in this situation X, with these factors Y contributing, the bad effects outweigh the benefits", and I'm sure people will discuss with you much more constructively.

[Sindyr]

OK guys, I think I have found a way to express my position clearly, and it's one that is a lot more general than just relating to Authorship (what Tony spins as a "security blanket") so I have split it off into its own thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19614.0

I think you will find within the distilled essence of what has been occuring not just on this thread, but on this forum that has been bothering me.

Thanks.