At the risk of bringing the Forge's fearsome analytical powers to bear on, y'know, us:

Read this thread: Who cares? and this one: And now, Plato.

Know what I think? I think that some of us really want someone to claim that our characters have an external-to-us spiritual reality or something.

Now why would that be?

Maybe we all know someone who does?

-Vincent

Really, I got lost in what they were actually talking about quite some time ago. I don't think anyone knows what anyone else is talking about. Otherwise, there wouldn't be some 6 or so pages of psycho-babble. Yeah, I'm probably just stupid, and everyone is on the same page except me. I've given my thoughts (and what I hoped was a pretty stable theory) on the matter, but I don't think its what they are looking for. I liked some of the other responses too, but they got overlooked for more deep psychological probing.

Ah well, such is life. On to other discussions.

EDIT: Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a winey, off-topic posting baby. The topics really seem (to me) to be extremely lost, or maybe its just me, and it gets me a tad frustrated (mostly at the fact that its probably just me). Oh well, I'll just let it go. Again, sorry for being such a pain in the ass.

Psycho-babble? I thought I was spouting Feeble-Minded Spiritual Bullshit!

I don’t know exactly where Vincent is going with this, but I’ll say that this issue has almost nothing to do specifically with RPGs for me.

The world of art and psycyhology is rife with folks who considered the act of imagination as vital to being human, and a kind of reality unto itself (though of a different order of reality than the one we commonly think of.)

These folks come to mind:

Marsilio Ficinio, William Blake, James Hillman, Carl Jung, JRR Tolkien, Keats, Michelangelo, Picasso, David Lynch, W. B. Yeats.

The list is not infinite. Shakespeare, despite all his fantastical writing, seems (to me at least), somewhat cynical about the way the mob loves the latest bunch of lies in blank verse. Van Gogh loathed work “made up” and worked only from life.

Many of the people on the list above were, ands still are by some, considered useless nut cases. Blake was a loser by all counts. None of them ever picked up a d20. But all of them valued the imagination in a way I feel a kinship with, and believed they were summoning something more than themselves when they worked.

My first point: I don’t think there’s anything particularly gamerish about this matter. And in the same way, a player who’s looking for tactical strategy wouldn’t know what to do about this, there are plenty of successful painters for whom doing a brush stroke is just another way for a pay check.

My second point: it’s got a lot to do with the point of view (which I touched on in my first post in And Now, Plato). For some, Keats and Blake’s nearly magical thinking is a “want” -- a desperate clutching after something that could never be met. For them, I suspect, it was just how they saw the world.

My third point: I was drawn to RPGs because it seemed a method for me to exercise my imagination in a time when I was just supposed to consume everything like a cow chewing methodically in a pasture. We are stuffed with entertainment that requires almost no true engagement. That said, my relationship with RPGs has always been a rocky one. I’ve seldom felt like I’ve gotten the “real” stuff. Which is why, when I get home from work tonight, I’ll be slipping into a bubble bath with the works of one of the guys listed above and reading (some selections) out loud. And why I get up four hours before I have to get to work and write and draw at home. RPGs kept me fed well enough as I continued to find my home with artists and writers of a different time.

Do I want someone to claim that my use of imagination has an external-to-us spirituality reality or something? No: first of all because that’s not what I’ve been claiming. But I know what Vincent means. And even in the more general answer to his inquiry: No, because I’m pretty comfortable already with the company I keep. The question “Why?” on this matter needs only be asked by folks on the outside who can’t entertain this point of view. Or those who carry it but need to keep poking at themselves.

That all said, if someone wants to take apart my love and company of certain poets, painters and psychologists who, by habit, got down on their knees and offered a prayer to the muses before getting to work (really), go to town. It will, as always, be interesting.

Christopher

Vincent,

Scattered in the various threads are some attempts to acknowledge that what we're talking about is a subset of common philosophical issues about the nature of Art/creativity, which may also be a subset of the age-old debates about the nature of conciousness, reality, God and etc. etc. But I think one of the big reasons this character thing is a particualrly sensitive subject in RPGs is more about the Balance of Power - that there is a character, and you are sovereign over it, is often the strongest lever a player is ever able to use against the awesome weight of GM authority.

That said - yes, I've known such players. But not many who were so far out there that it almost seemed a psychological problem - which may be where you are heading with the subject "weird gamer friends." I can't be much help there.

MachMoth,

I've been frustrated on occassion too, but I think progress has been made. Some of it (it seems to me) is just the nature of communication via forum - you just never (or rarely) get that "ah-HA! We've reached understanding!" feedback that occurs in a face-to-face conversation. For what it's worth, I think everyone's posts have added a piece to the understanding - that specifically includes you, despite the fact that the whole program/data model doesn't quite pull it together for me.

Chistopher(K),

My opinion - a Muse that lives only in the silence within is no less real, and no less magical, than a Muse that flutters about Olympus on starry wings. Either have been rumored to respond well to various supplications - flattery, sacrifice, and a glass or two of fine wine, among many others.

But rarely is it healthy to become as obsessed with the Muse as we are with the work. Those who go down that path rarely fare well, by my recollection.

Gordon

lumpley wrote: At the risk of bringing the Forge's fearsome analytical powers to bear on, y'know, us:

Read this thread: Who cares? and this one: And now, Plato.

Know what I think? I think that some of us really want someone to claim that our characters have an external-to-us spiritual reality or something.

Now why would that be?

Susan plays Amoraliana, Elf-Princess and so forth. During play, Amoraliana slays her own newborn infant with the Dark Vampire Sword, amidst much turmoil and grief. (Let's say there's all manner of dramatic context.)

Does this mean Susan would kill her own child in real life? Horse-puckey.

Does this mean Susan secretly wants to kill her own child in real life? Double horse-puckey.

lumpley wrote: Know what I think? I think that some of us really want someone to claim that our characters have an external-to-us spiritual reality or something.

A thought while in the shower:

This thread and Sorcerer Gedankensetting have a tremendous amount to do with each other.

Well, I'm still sitting with the "you're responsible for the expression of your thoughts, not their content."

Getting folks concerned about what their characters could reveal about themselves seems like a recipe for disaster: since most games still involve killing things and taking their stuff... (cue reference to Power Kill)

Clinton has said players want to feel their characters have an external reality because they don't want to feel responsible for their characters fantasized actions: I ask, would it be a good thing if they did?

Sure, it can be interesting in retrospect, but as an active process, I don't think it helps play, or design.

Surely the biggest advantage of using rpg's to exorcise or explore "unacceptable" feelings is that it's done without judgement on the player.

Clinton makes it very clear he's raising the issue of what Susan's character does as showing us that she probably has socially unacceptable feelings about motherhood with no judgement on her. But what if she made the choice from a Gamist perspective, with ethical misgivings but tactical preferences? What if the whole situation was set up by the GM? Without knowing the dramatic context, we can't say that the baby slaying tells us anything about Susan.

And, as Clinton says, when we get into the area of "unacceptable to herself," we're in the land of wacky psychology, denial, and other ungroovy lack of funkiness.

To go to a concrete example I gave in another thread: when I answered for Polonius that he would not intervene to prevent the rape of Ophelia (his daughter) by Hamlet, but would stop spying on the couple while it happened, was I really saying that I, Pete Darby, really think rape is sometimes acceptable, if somewhat distasteful?

I damn well hope not.

But a character who thought that way was possible to be expressed from my mind. Am I responsible for it?

The exchange was made in a context where I knew I wouldn't be judged for the opinions of the character: if Polonius were "my guy" in an rpg campaign, I'd probably be more guarded in his expression, partly due to fear of other players judging me for it, partly due to not wanting to spoil their enjoyment of the game. Unless the (implied or explicit) social contract had a "no judgement" clause.

Perhaps we need one of those; "The viewpoints and opinions of the characters do not necessarily reflect those of the players."

I thought about it over night, and I'm starting to see why I got frustrated. It's not that the discussion isn't valid, its that I can't see what would be accomplished, should we actually come to a conclusion, that hasn't already been pretty well covered by, oh say, character stance.

What I want to know is what would we gain by either proving that characters exist or don't exist, or more to the core of the issue, what the definition of existance is in roleplaying (or the more specific subsets there of) terms. In fact, the discussion seems to be rather hindered by a lack of definition for existance.

Everyone has there own definition of what a character is (and their level of "existance"), much as they do a definition of roleplaying. Attempting to simply say your way is correct only creates the same pitfalls. So, taking an unbias POV, I refer back to the beginning of "Who Cares." A character's state of existance has no bering on a players preferance for actor's stance, no matter what their wording choice is.

It's not a total loss for me though. I will never misspell "exist" again.

MachMoth,

I'm a ‘knowledge is an end in and of itself’ kind of guy, so my point of view is what we get out the discussion is understanding. That's the big one for me. If you're looking for something more tangible: we get to reach some semblance of a consensus which enables us to move past the topic in the future, even if that consensus is differing points of view.

cruciel wrote: If you're looking for something more tangible: we get to reach some semblance of a consensus which enables us to move past the topic in the future, even if that consensus is differing points of view.

Clinton wrote: Therefore, your character is, well, you. The image I always use to describe it is that your character is a grotesque - an overblown facet of yourself. You would not necessarily do the actions you direct that character to do, but you'd think about them.

Clinton wrote: Does this mean Susan has some feelings about motherhood that she feels are socially unacceptable, or that are even unacceptable for her to admit to herself? I'm going with "yes" on that question.

Vincent wrote: Know what I think? I think that some of us really want someone to claim that our characters have an external-to-us spiritual reality or something.

I wrote a bunch of stuff tangential to this thread as it's become and posted it in actual play: Soothsaying.

It just seems as though some of us - I don't have any particular body in mind - are all set to argue against the roleplaying-is-magic people, and there aren't any roleplaying-is-magic people here. We have our arguments all prepped to go in case they show up: why? Are they really that influential?

My answer is a big yes. I know those people. I have conversations with them and hang out with them. They're my gamer friends.

That's all I meant, but that said, are the roleplaying-is-psychology people, like Clinton (and me, incidentally), the Forge's version? I think that by roleplaying we can say things we need to say, helpful healing things, bringing our own dark places to light things. Is that idea as nonsensical as the idea that my character's some disembodied personality I'm channelling?

Ha! Expert opinions. We have a resident chaplain. I wish we also had a resident ceremonial magician and a resident shrink!

-Vincent

I'm in 100% agreement with Clinton and Vincent. With only rare exceptions, the characters I play are imbued with facets of my own character that I'm either not able to fully exercise (anger, angst, violence for example) in polite society or that I struggle with internally. The therapeutic value of role-playing is amazing.

-Chris

Vincent,

You've confused me. On the one hand, I wholly agree with both you and Clinton regarding the revealing psychological content of one's role-playing choices. On the other, you seem to be associating this with some kind of mystical or supernatural origin for role-playing inspiration, which is what I consider (a) off the beam for my own outlook but (b) "perfectly all right if it floats your boat."

So I don't see the line you're drawing, at all.

Best,
Ron

Vincent,

Unless someone else wants it, I'm willing to take the job. Assuming of course you don't want the shrink and the magician to be two different people.

-Mendel S.

What Ron Said, but being me, let me try and develop that a bit further (and yes, this is the ammo I have ready for the RP-is-magic folks, but it's intended to allow me to assimilate rather than anihilate them).

As best as I can tell, the truth of the matter is that our characters are just a way for us to talk to ourselves (and share that with others who are doing the same, which creates a feedback loop - and which, lest this all seem too high-falutin', need serve no other purpose than "fun"). Given just how complicated that process of talking to ourselves is, the chaplain, the shrink and the magician can all find interesting ways to provide focus, insight and coordination to the conversation. I'll happily try out what seems to me an unrealistic, "magic" process to tap into my character's desires (ha!), because it may open up a new channel in that me-talking-to-me process that the psychologist, for e.g., could/did not.

As long as I'm allowed the meta-thought that what's "really" happening is me-talking-to-me, I'm cool. The question of whether to approach a character as shrink, priest, or magician (or anything else) then becomes entirely a matter of taste and practical usefulness.

Gordon

Mm, Ron, no. Or sort of.

My insights into what goes on in my mind might just be superstition. It seems to me that roleplaying can be more than fun, can be actually important - but maybe I'm as wrong as the supernatural origin folks. (The supernatural origin folks and I agree about roleplaying's potential to be important, at least - although we disagree why and wherefore.)

That's the connection I was trying to make: introspection isn't a reliable way to tell truth from fancy. I doubt my own opinions.

But check it out: I started this thread because I find it curious that, for a position that no one has yet taken, the supernatural origins position has SUCH gravity in the discussion. Lots of people arranging themselves relative to it, all spontaneously. What's up with that?

In this thread, I can see the same thing, only here it's lots of people (me too, in this very post) preemptively disavowing "wacky psychology." Has anybody accused us of wacky psychology? Why are we preparing our defenses against it?

Roleplaying is important to us, but God forbid we look like weirdos.

-Vincent

Feel a strange compulsion to reply.

First of all -- Yes, this thread has a lot to do with 'Sorcerer Gedankensetting' And I think that what side you take in this discussion probably also predicts what feelings you will have about Demons in Sorcerer, in particular whether they are Self or Other.

Now, actual reply.

A lot of people say that all creative work is by nature completely internal, and is thus a reflection of parts of the creator's psyche, and nothing else. This may be true (in fact, for single creator forms, it is necessarily true) however, there are a lot more things going on there, and it does not mean that all characters in any creative work are, in fact, their authors working through some sort of psychological issue. Because there are a lot more things in our head than just us.

I know this because, by and large, my characters are not avatars of myself. They are avatars of people I know -- amalgams of friends, acquaintances, characters from other media, and enemies. I play these characters because I want to see what life might look like on "the other side." Of course this is entirely generated by my own brain -- however, it is an image of someone else within my own brain, that is distinctly Not Me.

Is this useful for dealing with my own issues? Of course -- all art is. Is it directly applicable (ex: Ben's character is a zealot, so he has issues with believing too much in things)? Not neccessarily. It may very well be me trying to figure out someone else's deeply hidden thoughts and motivations that I have picked up on subconsciously. It may be any number of other things!

Some people play RPGs in a direct avatar-experimental way. This is lovely for them. I rarely do so.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. As far as any mystical business goes, I will go as far to say that it is scientifically likely that all of our RPG characters, and many variants thereon, exist in this universe, somewhere. Yes, even the ones with magic. This is actually a nearly meaningless statement, but it's fun to thing about.

Well, when you look back at it, theatre has it's origins in religion, many psychological schools happily steal, sorry, reference theatrical and religious language and techniques, many of which feed into rpg's as well.

Fundamentally, drama, religion, rpg's and psychology use similar techniques to do similar things, though for ostensibly widely different reasons. It's no wonder there's commonalities, fundamental shared ground, which I think most people posting in these threads grasp intuitively (hence the defences against charges never expllicitly stated).

I forced to express it (and my dears, you are forcing me), I'd say it was exploration of the relationship between the self and the other, and the testing of the boundary. It's how I create an rpg character. It's how an actor prepares. It's how babies develop personalities. It's how Descartes "proved" the existence of God from first principles.

So while the exploration of the subject is fascinating, the fact that some people seem to find it surprising is, well, surprising to me.


PS

And Ben, I'd say that this holds true for single creator forms also, as the expression of creation must engage with another (the reader) through a common medium (language), both external to the creator of the work. And unless the work is entirely solipsistic, the creator must create "surrogate others," the characters of a story, the imagined incidents, the environment surrounding them, the creation of which, I'd claim, is not entirely under the creators control, due to external influences on the creative mind.

EDIT

I'd just like to say, none of this is meant as reductionist. exclusionist, or dismissive of either religions, psychology, drama or RPG's. Except maybe the crack about psychology stealing stuff. I'm talking about techniques, not truths revealed by them.

And a final thought tripping through my sleep deprived brain: this is another reason why I love Glorantha, and it's expression in HQ in particular. It's main theme, if it has one, is the creation, exploration, exploitation of and submission to myth, both by societies and heroic individuals. With talking ducks.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Therefore, your character is, well, you. The image I always use to describe it is that your character is a grotesque - an overblown facet of yourself. You would not necessarily do the actions you direct that character to do, but you'd think about them.

In "And now, Plato," Ron says:

Susan plays Amoraliana, Elf-Princess and so forth. During play, Amoraliana slays her own newborn infant with the Dark Vampire Sword, amidst much turmoil and grief. (Let's say there's all manner of dramatic context.)

Does this mean Susan would kill her own child in real life? Horse-puckey.

Does this mean Susan secretly wants to kill her own child in real life? Double horse-puckey.

Does this mean Susan has some feelings about motherhood that she feels are socially unacceptable, or that are even unacceptable for her to admit to herself? I'm going with "yes" on that question.

Jason a.k.a. Cruciel wrote: I'm a ?knowledge is an end in and of itself? kind of guy, so my point of view is what we get out the discussion is understanding.

Does this mean Susan has some feelings about motherhood that she feels are socially unacceptable, or that are even unacceptable for her to admit to herself? I'm going with "yes" on that question.

I happen to notice that Ben said a similar thing that I did. Basically we're saying phooey to the theraputic nature of the character. That is, it could be, but not necessarily. Humans are complicated animal, as Clinton had said. They do stuff for all kinds of reasons.