Over in Vincent's Character and Our Weird Gamer Friends thread Clinton raised the idea that a character is in some way an expression of an issue you need to work through.

I disagreed this is the only relationship. Ben came in on page 2 and gave an example of a player to character relationship that doesn't fit with this. Thank you Ben. BTW - It sounds like the player to character relationship you describe for yourself would fall into my type 2 (more like fuzzy notion 2).

Now, I'll concede that there may be therapeutic value in role-playing. That's not the snag for me. The snag is that the personal issue relationship is the only one. I think anyone agreeing with this is painting with too broad a brush. Creative agenda varies, and everyone seems to be able to accept that. People relating to their characters differently shouldn't be too foreign a concept.

In the other thread both I and Ben have stated a seemly different relationship to the character than the personal issue relationship. I'm willing to put my own brain on the lab table to put this particular generalization in its grave. You may surprise me, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to map my characters to whatever problems I was having at the time.

I'm leaving for the mountains for four days in just a few hours, so it's unfortunate timing, but I really wanted to say this - I'll get back to this thread as soon as I can.

I've written quite a bit here and there about playing the not-I character as a way of exploring who we aren't and understanding how other people think and feel. I think Clinton is on to something when he says that these are all aspects we find within ourselves, but I think the distance is greater than he suggests.

For example, Joseph Wade Kondor (in my novels) is sensitive about perceived prejudice based on color; he's Black. I'm not Black (I did get some feedback from someone who is before it went to print). To a degree, that exploration is me trying to understand that perspective. Now, in another sense I've experienced prejudice based on other factors, and so translating my experience as the victim of prejudice to his situation means I can understand him and express him based on something analogous in myself. But it doesn't mean I have any problem about color--only that I'm aware some people do, and I understand what that's like because of something like it which enables me to relate. If I played a woman who killed her child (as Clinton suggests) it would not mean I had issues about motherhood (as Clinton suggests), but that I either understand how someone could come to that, or I'm trying to so understand.

I look forward to your return, and your thoughts on this.

--M. J. Young

I don't think either of you are too far off, and might be reading too much into my words.

Here's another way of looking at it: I cannot create anything that is not mine. If I create it, it is naturally influenced by my own psychology, biology, personal preferences, and whatnot.

Therapy is the art of answering your own questions. If you choose to portray someone who is, in your opinion, nothing like you, you still beg of yourself, "What's an appropriate response in this situation?" That's a question you've created, and I dare say you'd not be able to ask it - or at least answer it well - if it doesn't interest you.

I vote that before this discussion goes further, we jettison the loaded word "problems" and use "issues." Therapy, reflection, self-questioning - these all deal with issues, whether good or bad.

Before I get in my car and drive away...

MJ,

Your posts rings very true for me. It's very much how I play, and what I was trying to express in my second type (which I think I failed to express).

I think there is knowledge about the human condition to be gained in role-playing. To me, and others I'm lead to believe, my characters feel very alive because they are only analogous to myself, not an alternate representation of myself. They seem like a different person.

*****

Clinton,

Boy, I'm gonna do a little happy dance if there actually isn't any disagreement here.

Clinton wrote: That's a question you've created, and I dare say you'd not be able to ask it - or at least answer it well - if it doesn't interest you.

Well, I've returned, but can't think of much more to say. It may be that we've already reached agreement, and hence this thread has served it's purpose. However, I thought I'd sum up my view and make sure.

If my character is angry, it's expressing my interpretation of anger. If I remake Hamlet, it's my interpretation of Hamlet. That's the piece of myself I see in my characters. Now, does this mean I've got anger issues or a life like that told in Hamlet? I'd say not. I'd not even say the issues need apply to me in any sense other than being my interpretation of the human condition. Just as the movie Gladiator can capture me without being directly relevant to me, so could my characters.

I'd also like to know more about this approach to play that is more directly connected to personal issues, but I don't suppose this is the thread for that.

Check this thread for something along this vein that I brought up some time ago: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5562

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Here's another way of looking at it: I cannot create anything that is not mine. If I create it, it is naturally influenced by my own psychology, biology, personal preferences, and whatnot.