Hi,

I initially posted this on rpg.net but on reflection the issues raised may be better addressed here. To the extent it's relevant, this is phrased from an essentially simulationist standpoint, I think the issues though are just as relevant to narrativist play (though not at all to gamist play).

ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS

I'm presently reading The Story of my Life by Giacomo Casanova.

For those in the back row, Casanova was an Eighteenth century Venetian who was famous for his romantic exploits, thus giving rise to the term casanova.

Anyway, the book is tremendously well written. Extremely witty and erudite. It's also in places very surprising.

Sex per se forms a relatively small part of the book, despite what people might imagine. But social attitudes of the time are well depicted, if sometimes unconsciously. Some of those attitudes relate to sex in ways which are unexpected (this is heading to a gaming point, don't worry).

Casanova speaks on a couple of occasions about homosexuality, usually in the context of an anecdote where some guy has made a pass at him or he is mentioning that someone is gay. Casanova's view seems to be that homosexuality is not a moral issue, that is to say he sees nothing wrong with it. Indeed, he explicitly condemns the practices of countries which make it illegal or which pour scorn upon homosexuals. He sees such bigotry as essentially barbaric.

The only time Casanova has an issue with someone being gay is when a guy hits on him repeatedly and won't take no for an answer. He isn't bothered by the suggestion he might indulge, he knows his tastes don't run that way, he is rather bothered by the fact he is being pestered by someone he perceives as behaving rudely in not accepting defeat gracefully.

If he were fictional a modern reader would imagine that contemporary PC attitudes were being put onto the character. But this is a memoir written by Casanova himself. The surprising fact then is that an Eighteenth century rake was in fact more tolerant of homosexuality than most people today. Not what most would expect I think.

In another part of the book Casanova sleeps with two sisters on consecutive nights. One aged 11 and the other 12. Casanova is plainly no paedophile, he simply draws no great distinction between a girl of 11 and one of 21. Nor does anyone else in the book draw much distinction, including the girl's mother who knows about the affair. Casanova expresses surprise that a girl that young is interested, but once he knows she is there is no issue that she might be too young. The idea seems literally alien, it simply doesn't even arise.

Now, back then of course modern notions of childhood and adolescence simply didn't exist. You were either a child or an adult and as far as Casanova and everyone else was concerned if she was old enough to be interested she was clearly an adult for those purposes.

This is to modern sensibilities incredibly alien. An 11 year old today is seen as clearly being a child. That someone would make no distinction between her and a 21 or 31 year old makes no sense to the modern mind. He would in fact be arrested.

What struck me with this was quite how different his culture was, even in very basic things. There is no concept of the adolescent, most people know that but the practical implications of that fact are rarely so explicitly set out. In some things he is more modern than we are, in others he behaves in ways most people today view as not just morally repugnant but possibly even as a form of mental illness.

This is just 200 years ago and we're dealing with a Westerner.

Most games essentially have cultures which are America Lite, perhaps The West Lite if you prefer. There are cosmetic changes, people are loyal to a king instead of democracy, to many gods rather than just one, but fundamental moral assumptions of the modern day tend to still hold good. You don't sleep with 12 year olds in a fantasy game and homosexuality is rarely if ever mentioned.

Some try to depart from this. But generally most don't even bother.

Which leads to the issue of what we miss out by not even trying to put ourselves in another culture's heads. Heroic Greek rpgs rarely address the topic of Greek homosexuality. Western games usually try not to include racial attitudes of the day (often by the simple expedient of basically dropping all black people from the game). But these cultures aren't a huge stretch. I've summarised major differences in Casanova's attitudes from contemporary ones in one internet post, it's not impossible to put yourself in his head.

My impression is that most gamers like only cosmetic differences, elves aren't really alien, they're just Americans with pointy ears. But surely one of the great possibilities of roleplaying is exploring what it would be like to live in another time, another place. What's the point if when we go there everyone is just like us?

Well, to kinda work backward, the "point" is escapism for most. The want to be themselves in the body of someone that can kill like Legolas can. For this large percentage, the conflicts that they want to encounter are the safe, sanitized sorts of things that you find in LoTR.

Does this mean that one has to limit oneself to that? Not at all. Are you just calling for more depth in simulating different cultures? If so, I'm with you all the way. It would be good to see more games like that, IMO.

Do I think such games would sell well? No, I don't. I think that the dearth of material of this sort indicates the market forces present to an extent. Basically, most gamers do not share our predilections on this one.

Oh, BTW, careful with the subject material. I can see why this would be dangerous on RPG.net. Has anyone accused you of being a latent pedophile yet? I can see someone making the absurd connection that given the literature in question that you were simply seeking to vicariously satisfy some sort of vile urges.

On another note, anyone who claims that Cassanova would be mentally ill because of his liasons with girls doesn't understand mental illness very well. It can't be mental illness if it's a societal norm. For example, a sociopath doesn't care what anyone else thinks about them. Cassanova wasn't breaking a taboo, so he could still care. He just didn't have to worry about repercussions. Call the society barbaric if you will, but that doesn't mean that the members of the society are all mentally ill for buying into it's norms.

However, there is always the question of what lines gamers you game with are willing to cross. I can see potentially playing out relations with minors if done in a careful and detached manner, for example, as a source of exploration of setting. In point of fact, some of my players on occasion have made light of the "cabin boy" phenomenon in play (as a sort of couterpoint to modern sensibilities). But for the vast majority, I hope that they'd be offended if someone did take some sort of delight in some vicarious thrill in describing such an action. RPGs are social, and this would be akin to masturbating in public.

OTOH, if you're playing with Dav...just kidding!

Mike

The subject material needs to be dangerous to make the point in a way. If the subject material is comfortable where is the effort to understand?

I'm not talking about acting out stuff though, and particularly not for a vicarious thrill, rather about attempting to understand other cultures on their own terms. About roleplaying being more than John with a sword. About John not being John anymore, or at least making an effort not to be.

I'm 35. Sure, many gamers (including many older than me) just want escapism. But the form of our hobby permits of more and one of the things we haven't really seen still is much significant attempt to genuinely use roleplaying as an exploration of other times and cultures. Instead we have cultures surprisingly like our own, save for surface colour. Frankly I've played as many escapist fantasies as I need to. Something a little more adult (and I distinctly do not mean that in the sexual sense) would be nice, something which engages mentally and requires thought. Something challenging in a way other than whether I can reach the next level.

I don't believe I'm alone in this. Just as there were and are large numbers (if still a small minority) of frustrated narrativists I suspect there are large numbers of frustrated simulationists who want to explore what it is to be something or someone or somewhere else but instead get handed the same escapist fare but with more rules.

Hi Max,

I'm not sure where to go with this. Your final paragraph in both posts states your point, and it's not a point that bears much inquiry, I think. Or to put it another way, "Yes."

Can you help me out with what you'd like to see discussed?

Best,
Ron

I'd say the simulationist desire to involve the truly alien/different in RPGs can be seen all the way back to the Empire of the Petal Throne - which is not to say that such an endeavor can't be used as simply more exotic escapism, but . . . I guess I'm just saying the desire for that experience is part of RPG history, and I see no signs that it's gone away.

One direction I can see this thread heading is: what techniques (besides simply "absorbing" a variant set of world-views and etc.) can a game use to help the participants create gameplay that is truly grounded in an alternate mindset? (Note: I don't yet know how to have a productive discussion that includes the word "immersion", but I suppose it's worth acknowleding that some people will consider this issue to be all about immersion, whatever that means to them).

Gordon

I'm going to hit this issue from both the pro and con side:

On the pro side, there's something to be said for injecting some cultural realism in our games. As someone who falls solidly in the camp o' narrativism and kind of heavy-handedly injects questions of morality into his games (just ask my group), I think we can examine ourselves and our pre-suppositions by using other cultures as a reflecting point. Using your example of Casanova, it could be easily used to ask the questions:
- Are our sexual mores innate or imposed by society? Does getting rid of those mores liberate us or corrupt us?
- Do we overprotect our children from sex? If it's a normal part of life, what compels us to put age limits on it? Does making teenage sex illicit also make it a compelling deviancy to some?

I see a lot of story potential in using culturally-different settings. To inject a side point, I hereby forever reject the thought of "but some of these subjects would fall flat because my group can't deal with them." If an author made juvenile remarks when writing about sex, or two grown people giggled over sexual passages in a book, I'd call these people out as, well, juvenile and annoying. Why should I treat people differently just because they play RPGs?

---

On the con side, sometimes it's easier to examine ourselves by putting on costumes. We understand our own culture better than we'll understand any others, and putting a little layer of separation by playing "us, but in Roman costumes" for example, can be a liberating experience that allows us to address questions we couldn't otherwise.

Balbinus wrote: My impression is that most gamers like only cosmetic differences, elves aren't really alien, they're just Americans with pointy ears. But surely one of the great possibilities of roleplaying is exploring what it would be like to live in another time, another place. What's the point if when we go there everyone is just like us?

Robert McKee wrote: The archtypal story unearths a universally human experience, then wraps itself inside a unique, culture-specific expression.

Balbinus wrote: I don't believe I'm alone in this. Just as there were and are large numbers (if still a small minority) of frustrated narrativists I suspect there are large numbers of frustrated simulationists who want to explore what it is to be something or someone or somewhere else but instead get handed the same escapist fare but with more rules.

Balb, I think I'm going to echo Ron here and just say...yeah. I'm a member of that choir.

There's a lot of funky stuff that's perfectly normal in other societies that are just plain unfathomable to "us".

I think the most effective way this can be introduced in roleplaying games you've hit upon above already.

Picture the players in the game with Casanova as an NPC.
Introduce "little girl"
See "little girl" flirt with Casanova
See Casanova express surprise but arrange the liason
Allow players to react. At some appropriate intersection have them become aware that the mother already knows. Have whoever else the players are protesting to express shock and amazement that the players are so outraged (assuming they are).

In other words...break the players into what is considered "normal" for the society by allowing them to witness it...Connecticut Yankee style.

And building on what Ralph said - that is in fact the tactic in Empire of the Petal Throne, where the characters themselves are set up to be outsiders visiting the great city, so that the players can learn the culture as the characters do.

I'm wondering if we can find some other tools here, though . . .

Gordon

Gordon wrote:

I'm wondering if we can find some other tools here, though . . .

Sorry to followup my own post, but I forgot to add that plenty of other ways exist to introduce the same thing. Perhaps the material culture of the people could reflect their sexual or other cultural mores through:

vase paintings that depict the behavior in question
tapestries or other textiles that do the same
songs, drama, literature, etc. that celebrate the values in question

This is obviously a very partial list but once you decide on something that is a cultural value, start thinking about the myriad ways in which they might inscribe this value in all sorts of ways within a cultural system.

Cheers,

Eric

Valamir wrote: >SNIP<

Allow players to react. At some appropriate intersection have them become aware that the mother already knows. Have whoever else the players are protesting to express shock and amazement that the players are so outraged (assuming they are).

I'm a little surprised some folk here can't see what there is to discuss. The equivalent thread on rpg.net is now at 62 posts without a single flame and contains a lively discussion of how desireable it is to portray alien cultures per se and how one can practically do so while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in making them too alien or the game too didactic.

Anyway, there are a number of issues, not limited to the following:

1) Obviously for most people gaming is about escapism. Not for all though. That being so, if it is true that some wish to explore other mindsets how can this be achieved? Are there mechanical approaches which would assist? Are there practical GMing techniques or play techniques that would assist? What are the pitfalls in attempting to reflect other cultures more accurately when in actual play?

2) Can the exploration of other cultures mores shed light upon our own? Obviously yes. That being so could the better portrayal of such be a potentially powerful technique for exploring issues in gaming about ourselves and our own values? Clinton touches on this to good effect and it is something I see generally as being basically ignored in most games, narrativist or otherwise.

3) What makes something difficult to roleplay? Is it simply a question of taboo issues or are there areas which are not taboo but remain too alien to still accurately portray? If so, given we are human and speaking of human viewpoints what does that say about us as humans? Does that mean the roleplaying of aliens or fantasy races as anything other than men with pointy ears is necessarily impossible? Should we even try or is the only point in portrayal of the non-human the gaining of nifty powers?

4) Can the tension between our own values and those of the cultures we portray in game be used to generate drama in and of itself? Is there potentially a way of creating story now by utilising our own discomfort? If for example we play a game set in heroic age Greece with the premise, What does it mean to be a Hero? Can the tension between our notions of heroism and the highly divergent classical Greek notions of heroism assist in investigating that premise? If so, how can this most effectively be done without lapsing into didacticism?


Thierry takes us interestingly into the realm of mechanics. Pendragon is one of the very few games which attempts to mechanically assist the player in entering into a different mindset. It does so successfully and is highly regarded. And yet, almost nobody else has adopted this approach (Fading Suns being another honourable exception). This is an interesting pragmatic point, clearly what I am speaking of can be done because Pendragon has done it, Fading Suns has done it. Is this the best way to do it though or are there, as Gordon asks, other tools?

Does that help?

Balbinus wrote: And yet, almost nobody else has adopted this approach

Far away and long ago, in a thread called I listened to my friend's game last night, Mike Holmes made a really cool suggestion: when the PC just ate her favorite meal, she gets +1 to her damage rolls.

You could convey a culture to the players the exact same way. Set up a short list of actions that get you your bonus, like "have consensual sex with someone (regardless of age or gender)" or "take a sauna then dive into the lake through a hole hacked in the ice" or "eat haggis" or whatever. (sex, health, food... need fashion too, what else?)

Like Pendragon only with actions, not traits. Like Dying Earth, too.

-Vincent

Dust Devils takes a similiar approach with the various methods available for "healing" damage...a shot of whiskey, a daliance with a saloon gal, etc.

Its not so obvious in DD because that's a mind set that (via hollywood) we are all pretty much aware of. Translate the technique into something less familiar and I think it would work fabulously.

"Hmm, I've suffered damage to my Noble Bearing stat, how will I get it back...ahh I know...I'll have my way with a serving girl and then impale a peasant for looking at me wrong...that should do the trick..."

This is an interesting concern. I ran into a similar problem with my Legends of the Five Rings game. I have one player who is very into Bushido and Japanese culture, to point where he has practically adopted it. The rest of my group, who incidentally are all relatively inexperienced 'casual' gamers, had a real problem playing in the world.
You see, the one player wanted to play the very foreign culture of Rokugan to the hilt, complete with kow-towing, culturally accepted lying, caste system arrogance, the whole nine yards. The rest of the group wanted to be: 'us, but with big swords and nifty martial arts abilities.' I had real trouble reconciling the different views on playing in this foreign, incrutably Oriental culture. And of course the joke is that Rokugan is already watered down. Eventually I had to give up on my L5R game and play 7th Sea to keep my group from breaking up entirely.

Hi Vincent,

This mechanic was central to my unpublished game Fantasy for Real, which has been so cannibalized both for my and others' games that it'll probably never get completed.

It's also central to the refreshment mechanics for The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

I agree with the idea of mechanics as a powerful means of conveying and reinforcing unexpected or unfamiliar culture.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but isn't this a clear case of the basic ideas of "Baseline-Vision" theory in action? If cultural mores (especially the player-characters' own) are unfamiliar or unexpected, they're an aspect of "Vision" which must be supported by a scaffolding of system. Any element of system, from resolution mechanics to GM play of NPCs to the GM's description of the tapestries on the walls, could contribute to this.

- Walt

Balbinus wrote: I'm a little surprised some folk here can't see what there is to discuss. The equivalent thread on rpg.net is now at 62 posts without a single flame and contains a lively discussion of how desireable it is to portray alien cultures per se and how one can practically do so while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in making them too alien or the game too didactic.

That being so, if it is true that some wish to explore other mindsets how can this be achieved? Are there mechanical approaches which would assist?

Are there practical GMing techniques or play techniques that would assist? What are the pitfalls in attempting to reflect other cultures more accurately when in actual play?

2) Can the exploration of other cultures mores shed light upon our own?

3) What makes something difficult to roleplay? Is it simply a question of taboo issues or are there areas which are not taboo but remain too alien to still accurately portray?

If so, given we are human and speaking of human viewpoints what does that say about us as humans?

Does that mean the roleplaying of aliens or fantasy races as anything other than men with pointy ears is necessarily impossible? Should we even try or is the only point in portrayal of the non-human the gaining of nifty powers?

4) Can the tension between our own values and those of the cultures we portray in game be used to generate drama in and of itself? Is there potentially a way of creating story now by utilising our own discomfort?

If for example we play a game set in heroic age Greece with the premise, What does it mean to be a Hero? Can the tension between our notions of heroism and the highly divergent classical Greek notions of heroism assist in investigating that premise? If so, how can this most effectively be done without lapsing into didacticism?

Hi Max,

As a rule, please don't issue comparative RPG.net/Forge challenges. There's no reason that any particular topic here should "match" its discussion there, or vice versa.

Speaking specifically and non-comparatively regarding the Forge, you'll have to come up with a topic with more meat than this one to get much more discusssion of worth.

Basically, what you're saying has nothing to do with Narrativism vs. Simulationism. You're talking about depth of Simulationist experience and (in personal terms) emotional commitment to playing outside of one's own values.

And what can we say about this? Nothing. We know you'd like to do it. We know that you wish other role-players would like it more, or were better at it. The only possible response is, "Neat. Now we know one possible way that you, Max, want to play."

That's it. Nothing more to say. It's not much of a topic.

Best,
Ron

Walt Freitag wrote: I agree with the idea of mechanics as a powerful means of conveying and reinforcing unexpected or unfamiliar culture.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but isn't this a clear case of the basic ideas of "Baseline-Vision" theory in action? If cultural mores (especially the player-characters' own) are unfamiliar or unexpected, they're an aspect of "Vision" which must be supported by a scaffolding of system. Any element of system, from resolution mechanics to GM play of NPCs to the GM's description of the tapestries on the walls, could contribute to this.

Yesterday, when this thread was more about homosexuality and pedophilia, I hesitated to enter the fray; I did not want to appear to be the stick-in-the-mud moralist throwing a wet towel on a good idea.

The idea has expanded now, so I can say a bit more; I've also had a bit of time to consider the problems of the narrower focus.

I did create a playable alien race whose radically different mindset made them truly inhuman; I know how hard it is to do, and to play. The race is used to populate a world in which player characters are human visitors (regarded as aliens by the indigs). This is partly because it's a Multiverser world and that's how Multiverser is usually played; but it's also because getting into the mindset of an alien is an extremely difficult task requiring that whoever does it work all the way back to the core beliefs and assumptions of the character and all the way forward to the impact of those beliefs on action. Asking a referee to do this in presenting the world is hard enough. Asking players to come to this level of understanding in an ongoing and developing character personality is more than most want to do--as someone's Rokugan example illustrates.

I am in favor of exploring the alien, though, whether it's culture or religion or time or place. I just a few weeks back posted a Game Ideas Unlimited article on the idea of getting into the mindset of the people in the world you're presenting, so that they're not just us in a different place.

I am also on record as supporting play of people who are different--most commonly cross-gender, but also alternative sexualities--as a way of understanding how other people think. I usually do it on a more subtle level (although I play one female character for every two males, I think), exploring characters whose attitudes are different from mine in more fundamental personal levels (the cavalier who assumes that everyone will follow him).

In regard specifically to the Cassanova issue, though, sure, if you want to play something like that, and you feel that it's something your group can handle, more power to you. Some people aren't going to be comfortable playing in such a game, and I trust you're willing to let them step out of it and find another game. But if you're talking about publishing a game which encourages players to be involved in imagined pedophilia (as defined today), you might be crossing the line into child pornography; and in this country, at least, that's not only a criminal offense but a Megan's Law matter, which could really mess up your life for the long term.

Not all people who oppose pedophilia do so from cultural biases; I know a few people in the medical and mental health professions who maintain that it is unhealthy physically and emotionally for children of that age to have such relationships no matter how badly they want them. I know a girl who started taking serious interest in sex when she was about six or seven; I know of a family in which incestuous sexual contact between underage cousins as young as five was occurring outside the knowledge of the adults, with some pretty severe consequences. It is not clear that any child interested in sex is old enough to be involved in it, or that any particular mother understands this. In our society, pedophilia may be the one sexual offense that is not becoming acceptable, and I'd be careful about getting connected to anything that appears to promote it.

I hope that comes across as reasonable concern. I know that Max is not trying to promote real pedophilia, but it might appear from the outside that he was, and that could be problematic.

--M. J. Young

lumpley wrote: Far away and long ago, in a thread called I listened to my friend's game last night, Mike Holmes made a really cool suggestion: when the PC just ate her favorite meal, she gets +1 to her damage rolls.

You could convey a culture to the players the exact same way. Set up a short list of actions that get you your bonus, like "have consensual sex with someone (regardless of age or gender)" or "take a sauna then dive into the lake through a hole hacked in the ice" or "eat haggis" or whatever. (sex, health, food... need fashion too, what else?)

John Kim wrote: You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.

Nope, John, nicely asked: I haven't played with those kinds of culture mechanics. I have no idea if they'd actually work.

I agree with you that my suggestion is too superficial for serious internalization-of-alien-culture games. Have Sex with 18th Century Kids the RPG needs a serious, subtle, dude well thought out system, which I ain't got.

But if all you want to do is play up cultural differences at the color level, like say a game about 18th Century libertines where the meaty conflicts are about money and political power, and who they have sex with is just color -- superficial could be good enough. (That's where I'd put the Dying Earth refresh mechanics, too.)

you wrote: I avoid mechanizing any of the cultural or psychological aspects of the game. And I have to say that it is working pretty well. The players are doing pretty well at internalizing slavery, arranged marriages, raiding, and a bunch of other issues.

John Kim wrote: Personally, I have disliked all of the personality mechanics that I have encountered in play. To Chris Lehrich -- while I'm sorry to hear about the rubber-suit problem in Aurora, consider as a counter-example the Ripper CoC game, where we threw out the Sanity mechanics -- and what we got was an absolutely terrific set of mental breakdowns (even from Cullen, who is not exactly a shining star of role-playing). ... I think a problem I have is that this approach is that it seems to emphasize what I would say are surface traits, at the expense of depth. You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.

lumpley wrote: What techniques are you using to communicate the cultural stuff? Exposition, the actions of NPCs, anything else? I'm also curious about like the expertise breakdown of your group -- are you The Authority on such matters, or is everybody sort of in there mixing it up? How does your group handle conflicting opinions?

Just really quickly... System Does Matter simply says that there are better and worse tools for running a game for a set of people. System is just how we determine what happens in-game. If the system is, "whatever you want" or equally loose (AKA freeform) on some particular point like sanity failures, and that system works best, then that's the right system. System Does Matter, doesn't mean you have to have mechanics for everything. In fact that would be impossible.

I'm very fond of mechanics for most applications, for instance, but freeform is just as valid a choice for others. And there are probably other choices as well.

Mike

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Max,

As a rule, please don't issue comparative RPG.net/Forge challenges. There's no reason that any particular topic here should "match" its discussion there, or vice versa.

Speaking specifically and non-comparatively regarding the Forge, you'll have to come up with a topic with more meat than this one to get much more discusssion of worth.

Basically, what you're saying has nothing to do with Narrativism vs. Simulationism. You're talking about depth of Simulationist experience and (in personal terms) emotional commitment to playing outside of one's own values.

And what can we say about this? Nothing. We know you'd like to do it. We know that you wish other role-players would like it more, or were better at it. The only possible response is, "Neat. Now we know one possible way that you, Max, want to play."

That's it. Nothing more to say. It's not much of a topic.

Best,
Ron

Balbinus a.k.a. Max wrote: MJ Young's comments are interesting (and I'm glad the initial choice of example didn't bar him once discussion progressed, sorry for that MJ)

Valamir wrote: I think the most effective way this can be introduced in roleplaying games you've hit upon above already.

Picture the players in the game with Casanova as an NPC.
Introduce "little girl"
See "little girl" flirt with Casanova
See Casanova express surprise but arrange the liason
Allow players to react. At some appropriate intersection have them become aware that the mother already knows. Have whoever else the players are protesting to express shock and amazement that the players are so outraged (assuming they are).

In other words...break the players into what is considered "normal" for the society by allowing them to witness it...Connecticut Yankee style.

Simon,
Characters are not real. You can say all you want about "play your character" and "be immersive", but at the end of the day, characters are imaginary. They are not and never will be real.

The greatest actor in the world will never be able to play a character exactly as that character would have existed no matter how much study he does.

You can try to be as immersive as possible but you will never completely exorcize the metagame experiences of your own life from your portrayal and you will never fully understand the character and what the character knows as well as the actual character would if he was real.

So given that 1) metagame influence will ALWAYS be >0%, and 2) your portrayal of your character will NEVER be 100% realistic; your point becomes one of quibbling not over metagame vs no metagame but how much metagame is tolerable; and not one of realistic vs not realistic, but how not realistic you can be to maintain suspension of disbelief. This then is a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to.

But in the end, it is not the characters who are being hooked by a scene. Characters can NEVER be hooked by anything. They are figments which don't exist. Only PLAYERS can be hooked by a scene and therefor the GM must communicate in a manner that the PLAYER can understand. If that involves setting things up in order to penetrate a player's metagame knowledge (i.e. that set of assumptions about life that all players carry with them) in a manner that may perhaps not be a "purist" portrayal, than so be it. This is common practice in historical novels and period plays anyway.

The alternative is to that is either 1) expect your players to be walking period encyclopedias and to have read all the same source material as you, or 2) play something else.

Valamir wrote:
So given that 1) metagame influence will ALWAYS be >0%, and 2) your portrayal of your character will NEVER be 100% realistic; your point becomes one of quibbling not over metagame vs no metagame but how much metagame is tolerable; and not one of realistic vs not realistic, but how not realistic you can be to maintain suspension of disbelief. This then is a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to.

But in the end, it is not the characters who are being hooked by a scene. Characters can NEVER be hooked by anything. They are figments which don't exist. Only PLAYERS can be hooked by a scene and therefor the GM must communicate in a manner that the PLAYER can understand.

If that involves setting things up in order to penetrate a player's metagame knowledge (i.e. that set of assumptions about life that all players carry with them) in a manner that may perhaps not be a "purist" portrayal, than so be it. This is common practice in historical novels and period plays anyway.

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Can you give some examples of what you mean here (re. historical novels or period plays)?

The alternative is to that is either 1) expect your players to be walking period encyclopedias and to have read all the same source material as you, or 2) play something else.

(1) Is rediculous. If you as GM are specificaly setting up a situation where a minor propositions a player characters, it's blindingly obvious that the social mores concerning that, which the character must be aware of, are relevent information to the player. Communicating that information to the player is a trivial task.

(2) Is very sensible. I'd have to seriously consider whether I want to play a game in which information relevent to the game, and which is obviously available in the game world to my character, is denied me, apparently purely in order to amuse the GM. I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I'd find that acceptable.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

Quickie note that Max is right, and this thread is kicking along just fine. I was getting perturbed after the first page, but then people sort of invented the focus, and all is well.

Best,
Ron

This then is a matter of personal preference that there is no right or wrong answer to.

I disagree. Games involve a social contract between players and the referee. What it is right or wrong to do in that game is based on that social contract.

I think you've jumped threads. I'm not arguing that characters are non-fictional. That may or may not be, but it is irrelevent to this situation. This isn't about player/character motives or attitudes, it's about player/character information. Do you realy think it's fair to deliberately withhold obviosuly relevent information from players that their characters have? What kind of game social contract do you think best supports that kind of approach to play? Does your gaming group have a social contract that supports or encourages this, and how does that work in practice?

If that involves setting things up in order to penetrate a player's metagame knowledge (i.e. that set of assumptions about life that all players carry with them) in a manner that may perhaps not be a "purist" portrayal, than so be it. This is common practice in historical novels and period plays anyway.

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Can you give some examples of what you mean here (re. historical novels or period plays)?

(2) I'd have to seriously consider whether I want to play a game in which information relevent to the game, and which is obviously available in the game world to my character, is denied me, apparently purely in order to amuse the GM. I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I'd find that acceptable.
Simon Hibbs

1) expect your players to be walking period encyclopedias and to have read all the same source material as you
There ways around this.

"You are approached by a young girl of about eleven or twelve....uh in this society the age of consent is considerably younger. In our society it is the equivilent of being 18. Young yet adult."

Sure...but that's hardly as powerful in terms of its impact on the player. In fact, all you're really doing is reducing it to trivial color.

Nothing about the player's mindset is being challenged here. All's he's doing is translating your 11-12 year old into 18 years old in his head, and then proceeding to play exactly as if you'd just made her an 18 year old to begin with. IMO not very compelling, and not very illustrative either.

YMMV, OC

True, and thus the problem with examples. I am just of the mind that it is possible to explore the new, unfamiliar worl without having every single session being a Conneticut Yankee story which, IMO would be a feature similar to the party mentality (see the other recent thread) and make roleplay take on a paculularity that is not about the medium but about the players choices. That is, a group can chose to play Conneticut Yankee, that's their choice. But Roleplaying does not need to be Conneticut Yankee to compelling, either.

Quite, I was highlighting 1 method that I think would work best for the particular subject matter used as an example at the beginning of the thread. Certainly overusing this technique would have its own set of problems.

Ralph 'Valamir' Mazza wrote: Nothing about the player's mindset is being challenged here. All's he's doing is translating your 11-12 year old into 18 years old in his head, and then proceeding to play exactly as if you'd just made her an 18 year old to begin with.

I've been flopping back & forth on this, partially because I am of two minds on this issue, considering Jonathan's thread on the separation of Players & Characters. On the one hand the characters are not real, right. They are merely imaginary constructs in the players' heads. Therefore the characters do not have reactions, the players do. However, as imaginary people living in an imaginary world responding to imaginary stimuli, the characters do can conceivable have an imagined reaction, then. The players may then have a reaction to the imagined reation, as they have a reaction to every other item in the shared imagined space.

Valamir wrote: Sure...but that's hardly as powerful in terms of its impact on the player. In fact, all you're really doing is reducing it to trivial color.

Nothing about the player's mindset is being challenged here. All's he's doing is translating your 11-12 year old into 18 years old in his head, and then proceeding to play exactly as if you'd just made her an 18 year old to begin with. IMO not very compelling, and not very illustrative either.

YMMV, OC

I don't know how to express it any differently than I've already done Simon. Except to point out that you are operating from the assumption that immersion within a characters mindset is the primary goal (or even a goal) for all roleplaying. It very well may be for you. But you should start with an understanding that many think it is not only unnecessary but a tiresome and boring way to play.

As a player I want you to hook ME. I want you to interest ME.
I have about zero interest in pretending my character is interested when I am not.

My character doesn't exist. It is a piece of paper with numbers on it. It can not be bored, shocked, surprised, annoyed, frustrated, or anything else.

I can.

The game should be directed at ME. After all, I'm the one spending hours of my time choosing to play. Hooking the character is a waste of effort if you don't hook the player.

What I took away from the first post was not so much an interest in how to play historically accurate characters.

Which leads to the issue of what we miss out by not even trying to put ourselves in another culture's heads

My impression is that most gamers like only cosmetic differences

What's the point if when we go there everyone is just like us?

Just to head off the obvious counter-argument, Ralph isn't saying that it's wrong to enjoy the immersive mode, it's just one option. A valid option, but not one he's interested in apparently. I myself can enjoy either.

The point is, however, that Ralph is correct in that he was pointing out that what Max is looking for is an exploration of the difference. That's why people are having problems. They realize that to get this you need to have two things delivered.

First, you need to have the feeling that this is abnormal delivered. That is, that it's different from what you think is normal. Then you need to also have delivered that the character thinks it's normal. It's precisely the disparity between the player's feelings and the character's feelings which are sought.

This exists in all sorts of RPGs already. Consider Unknown Armies. It's exactly that you don't have your "meters" reset, and the characters do that makes the game disturbing. As the character becomes inured to killing, you aren't supposed to become inured as well (and if you are, I don't want to know you). What you're supposed to experience is the horror of the idea that a character that's a protagonist is having such terrible emotions.

(BTW, for those following the thread on RPG.net, this is precisely the problem that posters are having trouble with on that thread. There are those who think that the only way to get a kick out of RPGs is vicariously, and hence that having a character do these things is tantamount to actually doing them, and then there are those who understand that one can dispassionately observe the character as an author does. Steven King isn't evil, his characters are.)

This is certainly fertile ground for exploration in terms of setting, culture, etc. A fairly open mechanic would be to reward players for looking into these differences. That is, instead of saying, "huh, just like 18, well then, whatever," saying, "just like 18, well, does that extend to the neighboring country as well, or is it just a local thing?"

Mike

Valamir wrote: I don't know how to express it any differently than I've already done Simon. Except to point out that you are operating from the assumption that immersion within a characters mindset is the primary goal (or even a goal) for all roleplaying. It very well may be for you. But you should start with an understanding that many think it is not only unnecessary but a tiresome and boring way to play.

As a player I want you to hook ME. I want you to interest ME.
I have about zero interest in pretending my character is interested when I am not.

My character doesn't exist. It is a piece of paper with numbers on it. It can not be bored, shocked, surprised, annoyed, frustrated, or anything else. .....

If you're going to go to the time an effort of setting your game in a completely different culture. something that is intentionally NOT just American treehuggers with pointy ears; then it had best be something meaningful to the PLAYERS. If its only meaningful to the characters its pointless. Characters have no meaning.

simon_hibbs wrote:
This is all true, but I believe that in the way you suggest presenting this cultural difference is not actualy through the medium of roleplaying. Suppose I play a character in a game set in ancient Rome. All sorts of behaviour that we consider sexual depravity is considered normal. I am perfectly aware of this, I as a player have read about Caligula and Tiberus' antics on Capri, and know the facts. However suppose the game is set in a Roman brothel - we've infiltrated it to get close to a Senator that frequents it. Through the medium of roleplaying, I am presented with information I already know, but in a very different context. My character may feel relaxed about what is going on in the rooms around him, but I as a player may not. The creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting will certainly strongly colour my experience of the game.

Valamir wrote:

I return to the 3 points I've already made:
1) expect them to become educated before playing.
2) find a way to deliver the context to them during play
3) don't play because they lack knowledge you deem to be a prerequisite.

The easy solution is just play Multiverser; then when we drop you into Cassanova's Vienna, you have no clue what the norms are, and you know it, so you're exploring the culture from the outside.

O.K., not what everyone wants to do, but it does solve the problem of players not knowing what characters know.

You can do the same thing in other ways. Would the British ambassador to Vienna have any clue regarding the cultural mores of the locals? In his country, it is quite definitely punishable under law to engage in such conduct with anyone under eighteen, and more severely so with anyone under thirteen. If what you want to do is create a tension between the player's views and those of the game culture, giving the player a character who is himself a stranger to the culture may give you the best of all worlds. You can get that Cassanova reaction, when the young girls make a pass at the PC, and their mother encourages it; you can even bring in the quite natural (and embarrassed) efforts of the PC to find out from someone with some official standing just what the laws are in this regard. I can see a PC trying to talk to a constable or some court official or a lawyer in an effort to get the matter clarified, without saying anything that might reflect badly.

Er, excuse me, sir? I, well, earlier tonight, I became aware of some young ladies--they were very young ladies, children, really, at least by British standards--who were flirting with grown men. I'm a bit of a stranger here myself, but back in England we call such girls "Jail bait", as their seductive efforts can get a man in a great deal of trouble. Yet no one at the party seemed concerned by this, and it was actually suggested by someone purporting to be the girls' mother that, er, private liasons with the girls might be arranged. I thought before I got anyone in trouble--well, indeed, as local ambassador, I will have to advise British travelers on the matter--just what is the law about this?

Hey Ralph.
It's late and I need to get up in the morning, but I note that you are making the same distinction of player vs character I was making until I changed my mind.

Valamir wrote: The game should be directed at ME. After all, I'm the one spending hours of my time choosing to play. Hooking the character is a waste of effort if you don't hook the player

Of course Jack. You're still hooking the player. That's the whole point of Kickers. What is a Kicker except some situation regarding a character that a player is hooked by.

Imagine a GM imposed Kicker handed to a player. Its every bit as cool and kick ass as any Kicker that's ever been written...except its something that the player in question couldn't care less about. Does it work? Does it work as well?

Lets say the GM comes up with a great hook that fits right into the character's background. Does the character care? Does the character care whether the hook makes sense or if the GM is expecting the character to do something that's....err...out of character.

Nope. The character doesn't give a rip whether or not he has the opportunity to avenge his fathers death. Only the player cares...or doesn't care.

IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player. If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

Valamir wrote: IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player. If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

Quite,
Other reasons would include:

1) point based games where these things made it onto the sheet for the benefit they gave at Char Gen without any desire to actually see it played.

2) games that require "Player must select 1 Flaw" type of thing, where the choice may wind up being not one the player likes, but rather one that the player dislikes least.

3) players who are resigned to being led around by the nose by the GM who feel obligated to include such things on their sheet for the GM to use (i.e. the poster child for Hooking the Character)

4) playing a pregen. Here I'm thinking going mostly off of templates provided in the game. For convention games there are different expectations and I think often players are willing to cater to those. But you will still see squabbles over who plays what character which are really nothing more than trying to find one that hooks the player. You will also often see players playing stock characters totally out of character because the character as written didn't hook them.

Hmmm.. uh-huh. All of which strike me like making love through a hole in a sheet. I kind of like to look at her, thank. Look at her eyes.

Now, are we saying that this is how some people play and this may not be for some or are we identifying a problem?

At this time Jack, I've completely lost all track of your train of thought.

What point are you trying to get to?

If you are attempting to question the rationale between my distinctions of hooking me vs. hooking the character you are heading down a completely different track from the context of that discussion.

I made that point in the context of Simon's comments about metagame, it had nothing to do with creating interesting characters (except to point out the fact that the very act of creating a character that it specifically interesting to the player is itself a huge Metagame act).

Valamir/Ralph Mazza wrote: Lets say the GM comes up with a great hook that fits right into the character's background.
...
IF the player places a high priority on the goals and backgrounds and details written on the character sheet and chooses to be hooked by those...then you've hooked the player. If he doesn't, then you haven't hooked the player regardless of what's written on the sheet.

I'm not sure you're following my point precisely John (and BTW you have Sorcerer backwards, its the player who creates the "hook" not the GM).

There is never ever a situation where a character is hooked...by anything...ever.

Characters are not real. They cannot DO anything, they cannot respond to anything, they cannot be hooked by anything.

I don't care how much time you spend developing an intricate background for your character, it isn't your character who's being hooked. Its you.

Part of your interest in being hooked as a player, may well be to be hooked through the vehicle of the character...but its still you the player being hooked.

The point of all that tangental discussion, was to demonstrate that to achieve the effect desired in the initial post at the start of this thread...that being the active highlighting of "alien" mindsets found in cultures with radically different morals from our own REQUIRES that those issues be directed *at the player*. Because directing them at a character who doesn't exist is pointless to the exercise.

I disagree Valamir.

Take, for example, the Warhammer game I'm currently playing in. My character started off as a devout follower of Sharafali, a few sessions in he discovered that Sharafali is, in fact, a particularly evil elf holding all of humanity in salvery. So he was a bit pissed off (to put it mildly). A few sessions later we discovered another religion - 'the Old faith', a very nature based religion, and my character's current aim is to find out all about this, and possibly become a follower of it.

It's a great bit of accidental plot, and what's more it's not something that interests me at all. I'm an atheist, and very happy being one at that. Religous discussions almost invariably irritate me, particularly nature religions. I am really enjoying this only because it hooks the character. Not me; the character.

Back to Casanova. I fully agree with Simon - to do it as you present it would shatter the immersion of the roleplay and, for the way I like to play, annoy me. It is near impossible to roleplay a character in a foreign place you can only access through your imagination anyway, without deliberatly breaking that link to make an out-of-game point about the culture.

Sorry Mr. Jack. What you just described may be the way you describe such things. But your description is inherently impossible. I'll repeat.

Part of your interest in being hooked as a player, may well be to be hooked through the vehicle of the character...but its still you the player being hooked.

I think I misunderstood you, Ralph, I believed you were saying that a hook needed to engage with the player's real-world aims and interests, am I incorrect in this?

I find your distinction in terminology unhelpful. To constantly discuss these things in a clumsy third person is, I feel, about as useful as saying 'you are not feeling anger, what you describe is merely the increase of Neurotransmitter X'. A distracting reductionism that, while true, does not help progress the discussion.

Valamir wrote: This is all true Simon, I'm in full agreement with you. But we already covered this above when we discussed the alternative is to make sure that all of your players are walking encyclopedias of period knowledge. See YOU'VE read about Caligula and Tiberus but have the rest of the players (or seen the somewhat censored History Channel version)?

How would you convey the same creepy atmosphere and disturbing setting to players whose sole exposure to Rome was the movies Gladiator and Sparticus. They have no context for any of the things that you allude to above.

I agree with Mr. Kim that the sides are still talking from differen,t equally valid, points of view. These represent certain preferences, and as such, I think that both sides are just saying what they'd like to see. And that's not going to go anywhere, IMO.

I offer as proof that I personally can see both sides of the argument equally well, and could enjoy either approach (and I think I'd hardly be unique in that).

Mikee

I think I misunderstood you, Ralph, I believed you were saying that a hook needed to engage with the player's real-world aims and interests, am I incorrect in this?

I find your distinction in terminology unhelpful. To constantly discuss these things in a clumsy third person is, I feel, about as useful as saying 'you are not feeling anger, what you describe is merely the increase of Neurotransmitter X'. A distracting reductionism that, while true, does not help progress the discussion.

Valamir wrote: Actually its very helpful. True it would be clumsy to discuss it this way all the time. But it is a profoundly helpful concept to understand. When you say "My character does" what you are really saying (via shorthand) is "I have my character do"

The implication of this are quite profound.

Valamir wrote: One ongoing theme that gets oft repeated like a mantra is how immersion requires the absence of metagame. Its one of those dogmatic things that people now repeat without really thinking about it. Ultimately it is proveable false as the above excercise demonstrates.

In every instance of "I confront the evil wizard" played in the game what is really being said is "I have my character Geoffrey confront the evil wizard". Its the same thing...
...
So we are no longer looking at a dogmatic "Metagame vs. No Metagame" instead we are looking at "Metagame yes...but how much".

Valamir wrote: (Re: conveying cultural information to the players) If you then settle on delivering the information to them during play there are many ways to do so. Mine was one. You don't like it, Fine. I've asked repeatedly for alternatives, you've come up with none. I'm not really sure what your point is at this point.

John Kim wrote: Well, just to use your own logic here, this statement is patently false. The character doesn't exist. Therefore the player cannot have the character do anything, because the character simply doesn't exist. Really what you are doing is just talking to the other players and GM. Both the character and her actions are imaginary. If I can refer to my character at all, surely I can refer to my character's actions.

I can't speak for whoever says that mantra, but it seems to me that you are again using an inconsistent definition of the word "metagame".
...
However, the statement "I confront the wizard" has no out-of-game referents, and thus is not at all metagame.

Personally, though, what is more important for my immersion is the sense of the in-game being independent of the meta-game. On rec.games.frp.advocacy, we expressed this as the definition of the World/Simulation corner of the Threefold -- the preference that in-game events not be influenced by meta-game issues.

For example, the GM might make only in-game statements about NPCs etc. -- but I can tell that he has caused some in-game events specifically for some emotional effect on me as a player (i.e. "hooking" me, for example).

OK, as I understand it, you were talking about the example case of an 11-year-old girl requesting sex with an older man (who is assumed to be the PC here). Jack suggested that the GM should immediately tell the player at least in short form that there is no legal concept of age of consent, at the same time as he brings up the girl at all. However, as I understand it, you suggested that the GM not do this but instead let the player play through the scene without such an explanation from the GM.

Now, I have some sympathy for not blatantly stating the information up front. An old adage is to "Show, don't tell". However, it does have the criticism that you are holding information for later. This is not "denying" information since it eventually does get conveyed, but it is "withholding" information for later.

Valamir wrote: Its recognizing that there is no possible way to leave all of the baggage of real life and your own life experiences at the door no matter how "in character" one is trying to be. Your own life is going to color your portrayal of that character, and in so much as your own life involves out of game beliefs, preferences, and areas of knowledge, your portrayal will be "contaminated" (if you wish) by this "meta-game".
....
"independent of" and "not be influenced by" are unobtainable ideals. Once one sets aside the idea that this holy grail is achievable, one can get past it and start to examine the IMO much more productive question of "Given that zero Metagame is impossible, how much is acceptable"

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: For example, the GM might make only in-game statements about NPCs etc. -- but I can tell that he has caused some in-game events specifically for some emotional effect on me as a player (i.e. "hooking" me, for example).

I can't parse here whether you're saying that what the GM is doing here you consider to be metagame or not. I would say that it is.

Valamir wrote: (Re: withholding information on attitudes towards sex with children) I believe it was Jack that brought up this alternative, and in my answer to him I gave my reasons for thinking it less powerful (not invalid by any means...but less of a "hit between the eyes with the realization of what is being said" moment.

It is the power of that moment that I wanted to preserve even if this clashes with the "purity" of the Verisimilitude.
....
If on the other hand one realizes that zero metagame is impossible and that ALL games, even the most immersive are going to contain some metagame influence...THEN one is better equipped to evaluate whether this particular deliver is an effective on or not and decide whether the potential powerful impact of the scene is or isn't worth increasing the metagame from non zero to slightly higher than non zero.