xiombarg wrote: One essay is particularly notable: "But I Vas Chust Follwink Mein Character Concept!" by Greg Stolze.

In it, Greg posits the "Gamer Nuremburg Defense", characterized by the cry: "Not my fault, I was just following my character concept."

Yup, straight-up "My Guy" Syndrome.

I actually agree with you John. But I think I'd take it a step further...in a way you likely agree with yourself but didn't explicitly express.

I think its ok for a player to portray a character behaving immorally...racist, rapist, serial killer...whatever....but it should be done with the full awareness that it is the player decideing to portray that character. What this means to me is this.

1) in other threads we've discussed the concept of lines and veils. Players should be aware of where other players lines are and if they choose to push past them (and I'm not saying that its wrong in all cases to push other players past their comfort zone...though it certainly can be) it should be acknowledged that I the player am violating your taboo area and not try to hide behind the character. One may feel justified going there despite the other player's discomfort (or one may immediately back off as soon as its made known) but in any case its the player doing it...NOT the character.

2) there are certain areas that I think are interesting and thematically powerful to explore. I think the some of the best characters are those that are 99% purely respectable, and 1% "oh my got how repulsive" and exploring exactly which acts of immorality are such as to completely bring the character's reputation low despite how "wonderful" they are in every other area, and which acts are forgiveable (or we're willing to look the other way on) because of their other virtues.

But it should be done with concious intention by the player in a context where exploring such an issue is appropriate both to the subject matter of the game itself and to the social fabric of the group.

"frivolous" actions of taboo topics I think should be strongly avoided and any excuse of "my character would" is entirely unappropriate. By frivolous I mean the guy who after his unit clears the village declares he's raping the women. If the point is to really examine the issue of how men are willing to inflict inhumane acts on people of other demonized groups that they'd be appalled at even thinking about committing against their own group...then that's a powerful topic to explore. If its a throwaway line given with a giggle that has no meaning other than the shock value of saying it with the quick "its just my character"...then that holds about as much weight with me as the ubiquitous "no offense" tacked on the end of a statement clearly meant to be offensive.

I daresay that the opposite is also worth avoiding. Becoming frivilously offended by whatever doesn't work for you for whatever reason is also no good. Or, at least, you don't have to loudly express it every time something happens you don't like and thus put the other players into defensive mode and claim "my guy."

I see it is more a bit of give and take. Learn where the other player's lines are and don't cross them and don't get upset when someone crosses yours. If everyone did the first, there should be less need for the second.

Valamir wrote: "frivolous" actions of taboo topics I think should be strongly avoided and any excuse of "my character would" is entirely unappropriate. By frivolous I mean the guy who after his unit clears the village declares he's raping the women. If the point is to really examine the issue of how men are willing to inflict inhumane acts on people of other demonized groups that they'd be appalled at even thinking about committing against their own group...then that's a powerful topic to explore. If its a throwaway line given with a giggle that has no meaning other than the shock value of saying it with the quick "its just my character"...

Hi John,

For the record, I think your play in the example you gave was fine. Great actually.

And further, I thought "My Guy" syndrome involved the use of entrenched decisions for the PC based on power struggles among the group members in an RPG, usually between a player and the GM. Thus, when the player feels that he's really got no option to influence anyting in the game (see: Railroading, for example), he grips his character tight and says, "Well, my guy does this, and there's nothing you can do about it."

I just reveiwed the thread you linked and, yes. That's pretty much the defintion of "My Guy" syndrome.

It didn't seem like there were any issues with you and the GM, nor power issues with you and the player who complained. This seems a matter of taste -- which matters -- but might be something else.

In short, perhaps to your surprise, you'll find yourself pretty much agreed with on this one from most parties posting. (Unless you want to pull it into an arguement somehow.)

Christopher

[Oops. Cross posted. Looks like the arguement started already.]

Oh, and in the hope of perhaps defusing the arguement (who knows, what the hell....)

I think you've misread Ralph's point. There's nothing there to imply it was a topic "previously agreed upon." You might be inferring some sort of agreed upon damned Premise, but Ralph didn't write that.

He wrote, as a counter example to a player having the PC doing sometihing just for shock value "If its a throwaway line given with a giggle..." which, when I read it, implied that the importance of the action was being defined in the moment -- not beforehand.

That doesn't mean a few overly sensative types might not misread it, but Ralph was taking stock of the player's action. Ralph's example, to my reading at least, suggested it was how it was handled, not if a matter if it was permissible beforehand.

Again, this doesn't seem a matter of My Guy syndrome, per se. If the players doing it just cause he can, to jerk control of the game back to him, then yes. It doesn't sound like you're involved in anything like that at all.

Christopher

John, I think you may be preachin' to the choir here.

The distinction has been made between those who use "my guy" as a means of taking power that is being denied them in play as against those who are trying to play true to a character; the latter is something we all agree is valid, while the former is evidence of dysfunction. (Identifying which is happening can be difficult at times, but that doesn't invalidate the distinction.)

In Multiverser, players put a lot of thought into what their characters would do, because the characters more directly represent themselves--as an I Game, on one level it asks what you would do if this had happened to you. One of our players, a nice guy pretty much liked by everyone, big and strong but generally soft spoken, had begun to emerge as something of a crusader for justice in places where it was lacking. He went through several worlds in which he was part of a small group of righteous outlaws facing the power of the establishment (I remember Blake's 7 and Robin Hood specifically). Then he landed in a modern world, and he just snapped. He killed a guy because he didn't like the answer he got to a question, and then got in a car and led the police on a wild cross-country chase, several times escaping by wit and luck, until finally they caught him and gunned him down. It stunned everyone, I think; but the way he did it seemed so very plausible, the guy who had just had enough of being the underdog striking out against everyone and everything, until he just got tired and let them catch him.

I think that the dysfunctional "my guy" syndrome creeps up mostly in games in which the referee exercises tight control over what the characters do and where they go; we never had too much of that in my groups, so any time anyone turned their attention to what "my guy" would do it was generally realistic and interesting, and not at all disruptive, even if it was completely unexpected by the rest of us.

--M. J. Young

I agree with John in that the faithful portrayal of a character's personality, even that which leads to morally dubious acts or behaviors on the part of the character, can ultimately be much more rewarding in terms of overall narrative impact than an intentional inconsistency which reinforces black-and-white notions of "heroism". It can be appropriate in some situations, but those frequently have more to do with the expectations built into the setting (like the Star Wars universe) than meta-game concepts of morality.

I also agree with Ralph in that keeping the limits of fellow players in mind when portraying a character is always sound policy. If those limits simply must be pushed, polite sensitivity should be the order of the day. A "fade to black" permits the action to occur off-screen, and leaves the details to the imagination. Even the implication of immoral activity can be too much for some, but that becomes more an issue of Social Contract negotiation than a matter of sensitivity to certain things due to personal experience.

Players whose characters commit atrocities solely for their own personal amusement are rare, in my experience, and luckily the vast majority appear to respond favorably to censure in the form of consequences affecting the character which are consistent within the setting (in Glorantha, for example, a serial rapist will literally transform into a broo over time. In a game based on Lovecraftian horror, a cannibal will similarly metamorphosize into a ghoul eventually). Often these sorts of players enjoy struggling to achieve some manner of redemption for their characters.


EDIT: Cleaned up some clumsy phrasing

Christopher Kubasik wrote: I think you've misread Ralph's point. There's nothing there to imply it was a topic "previously agreed upon." You might be inferring some sort of agreed upon damned Premise, but Ralph didn't write that.

He wrote, as a counter example to a player having the PC doing sometihing just for shock value "If its a throwaway line given with a giggle..." which, when I read it, implied that the importance of the action was being defined in the moment -- not beforehand.

John,

It occurs to me, after a thorough re-read of the thread defining "My Guy" syndrome that you aren't even talking about My Guy syndrome, let alone a polar opposite of such. You're talking about Abused Player Syndrome -- of which the behaviors detailed by My Guy Syndrome is one reaction to.

Additionally, you seem to be labelling "My Guy" as a term implied to mean any and all play of character for character's sake (Immersive Actor Stance), when it does not apply to the whole gamut, only a dysfunctional portion thereof.

The issue you're complaining about above -- limiting player behavior by using game concept -- is GM Control of concept, and that all depends on the game being run. Ron pointed out this discussion GM control of player character concept across G/N/S in the other thread, but I've referenced it again because it's quite relevant to what you're defining with "Anti-My Guy."

Finally, that seems a strange term, more a reaction to the perceived limitations of labelling My Guy play as dysfunctional, rather than discussing this actual problem on its own terms. At least, that is how it is coming across to me.

greyorm wrote: Additionally, you seem to be labelling "My Guy" as a term implied to mean any and all play of character for character's sake (Immersive Actor Stance), when it does not apply to the whole gamut, only a dysfunctional portion thereof.

greyorm wrote: The issue you're complaining about above -- limiting player behavior by using game concept -- is GM Control of concept, and that all depends on the game being run. Ron pointed out this discussion GM control of player character concept across G/N/S in the other thread, but I've referenced it again because it's quite relevant to what you're defining with "Anti-My Guy."

Finally, that seems a strange term, more a reaction to the perceived limitations of labelling My Guy play as dysfunctional, rather than discussing this actual problem on its own terms. At least, that is how it is coming across to me.

A pretty funny essay by Stafford was cited in a lead in to criticizing those who take a "my guy" approach, which in turn lead to a counter-post criticizing those who insist on total identification of player and character and who are also are repulsed by any distancing of player from character.

OK, as I mentioned in this thread, in my experience I more often felt annoyed by an opposite, "anti-my-guy" syndrome. I haven't read the Stolze essay, but the title certainly takes a tone that somehow real evil is perpetrated if a character does something wrong.

epweissengruber wrote: Stafford has a pretty canny understanding of how stories work and how challenging gaming and good story creation are not at odds with each other. But getting finicky about never saying "my guy" ain't the way of going about it.

Hello,

Ep, I suggest that your anecdote supports the point being made about the My Guy syndrome, rather than refuting it. I see Stafford encouraging Narrativist play, specifically by pumping Author Stance at key points, through the Explorative medium. Pretty straightforward, and not at all related to the dysfunctional syndrome which has gained the "My Guy" label strictly as a point of reference.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to get shot for this. How isn't this simple incoherence?

"My Guy" is, by definition, problematic because the player is doing things specifically to annoy other players (thanks Kirt). When immersion is the form of play selected, and it's being used correctly, there's no reason why it should be problematic, neccessarily. So John is citing one of two things here. Either the player in question is being dishonest realizing that immersion is OK, and just wants their way (Social Contract issue). Or the player is being annoyed by the players not playing in the CA that they want, namely something with a bit more Author stance or something like that.

How is the problem not solved by having the player agree to the play priority that includes immersion?

John, I, Ralph, Stolze, et al, I believe are not railing against immersive play (which seems to be your point in coming after this following on the other conversation). We're against players who use the idea that characters are sacrosanct to play badly.

Now, what consitutes bad play, and what's just player prerogative? Well, that is a fine line, I suppose. But you can't say that no player ever used My Guy stance. And we'd never say that players don't make the mistakes that you cite. So there's no difference of opinion here.

Mike

I get the feeling we're whirling around each other again, folks.

In this thread, I think I came up with a pretty good set of phrases that "My guy woud / my guy wouldn't" is a cover for, some of them pretty much always dysfunctional, other functional within certain agenda, or depndent upon the prevailing SC.

Mike Holmes wrote: "My Guy" is, by definition, problematic because the player is doing things specifically to annoy other players (thanks Kirt). When immersion is the form of play selected, and it's being used correctly, there's no reason why it should be problematic, neccessarily.

Mike Holmes wrote: John, I, Ralph, Stolze, et al, I believe are not railing against immersive play (which seems to be your point in coming after this following on the other conversation). We're against players who use the idea that characters are sacrosanct to play badly.

Now, what consitutes bad play, and what's just player prerogative? Well, that is a fine line, I suppose. But you can't say that no player ever used My Guy stance. And we'd never say that players don't make the mistakes that you cite. So there's no difference of opinion here.

John Kim wrote: My point is that I don't think there is any objective line for what is "bad play" and what is "player perogative". I am opposed to trying to classify play into objectively "bad" or "good", which clouds the issue IMO. There is no one right way to play. The exact same play might be considered bad to some and good to others.

Hmm. The point of My Guy (it seems to me) is that citing the fictional construct (the character) in and of itself as justification for something is never a good idea. The point of Anti-My Guy would be (again, it seems to me) that saying "this is what *I*, the real world person, WANT the character to do" is not a case of trying to place blame on a fictional thing that can't actually BE blamed - it's a legitimate gameplay desire.

"My Guy would . . . " bad, "What I want My Guy to do is . . . " good. Sometimes, what people really mean by the former is actually the latter, but sometimes, they use the former as a way to avoid responsibilty/conflict/etc. Which "sometimes" is more impoartant and/or common will vary based on individual experience and play styles, but both can be true without invalidating each other.

The difficulties that can show up when what you want doesn't match up with what others want can't be avoided, and can in fact be really fertile ground for interesting play when managed appropriately. But they are interpersonal issues ABOUT the fictional world - the fictional entities themselves don't enter into it.

As far as I can tell, John's example with his character Grimmond is firmly a case of conflict between what people want/expect, and not entirely within the purview of My Guy at all. The insights from classic My Guy (or even his Anti-My Guy) might have helped him a bit in discussing things (before/during/after) with Mark, but there's nothing in his description that makes me think he tried to avoid the conflict by pointing at Grimmond and saying "hey, it ain't me - it's him!" Mark didn't expect a brutal intra-PC fight to be part of the game, John thought it would be OK if that's where the character concept(s) and play events pointed to. My Guy is at the periphery - possibly usefully so, but not fundamentally the issue.

At least, that's how I see it,

Gordon

We agree, John, that no CA level preference is superior. But what we're saying is that there's a problem on the Social Contract level when "My Guy" syndrome appears, by our definition. That the player in question is breaking the social contract implicit to all play about everyone having a good time. You wouldn't argue that if I punched you that this would be just my preference, would you? On the social level I'm sure that there are all sorts of things we can agree are "bad behavior".

And you make my point. Since it's not a Social Contract issue as you point out, its an incoherence issue. That is nobody is wrong, as you point out, the problem in this case is that the CA wasn't agreed on in the first place. Thank you for providing the first concrete example of a GNS issue from your play.

Now, do some people misdiagnose a CA issue for a Social Contract issue? Yep, probably happens all the time. I stipulated to that above. So, yes, if somebody is complaining that somebody is doing something wrong on the social level when it's actually a CA problem, that's wrong, and should be fixed. Hence GNS.

Mike

P.S. on the whole "intent" thing again, that's not important. If a player is exhibiting a consistent behavior that's causing problems on the Social level, then they're obviously not paying attention to the social needs of the people playing. Which is, again, a violation of the social contract. Doesn't matter whether or not they intended to ignore the other player's needs or not, they have. Legally, that's guilt by negligence.

xiombarg wrote: I mean, you seem to think that Jim calling you out was bad. If one can't objectively determine if social behavior is bad or good, how can you claim what Jim did was bad? And actual play is just a form of social behavior in this context -- everyone is trying to play, and enjoy, the game.

Did this incident actually happen to you?

John Kim wrote: It seems to me that in previous threads, people talked about "My Guy" syndrome without any acknowledgement of the opposing "Anti My Guy". This implies that in the difference, the acting player is in the wrong and the complaining player is in the right. This thread was intended to correct that -- to point out that these are two preferences in conflict, not just one-sided bad behavior.

Hi John,

While I appreciate your concern that things are sometimes more complicated than people would like, I think you're missing the core issue here.

My Guy Syndrome is not about a player playing a character as he sees fit. It's about a player using his character as justifaction to be a thorn in the side of other players or the whole group. The PC, in a circumstance like this, is only the tool.

In the same vein, the person who usually hosts the game might declare is place no longer available because he's getting pissed off with how the game is going; the guy who owns the rule books might state no one else is allowed to flip through what used to be available resources for fear of "wear and tear" -- again, as a way of saying, "No. I want to get in your face now."

For this reason, I offer that the term Anit-My-Guy simply makes no sense. No one here would suggest you shouldn't play the guy the way you want.

The term only refers to the excuse of "character" to justify destructive behavior.

The fact that almost everyone responding to your example of play said, essentially, "You're behavior seemed resonable to me," only lends credence the idea that there is reasoanble playing of character and unreasonable playing of character -- and that it's really not that impossible to tell the difference. (I know that this notion will bother people who want to be able to disprove statements by using hypothetical examples drawn from circumstances having no bearing on actual real play, but them's the breaks.)

I offer that Anti-My-Guy as a manifesto (using "My Guy" as defined by everyone here at the Forge), could only be defined as Every Guy for Himself, Fuck the Others If They're Going to Fuck ME -- not the positon I think you mean to be taking.

Again: My Guy, is the "cover" taken for the real issue of some sort of anger/frustration at stake; it could be revealed through several other covers. No one is arguing that there might not be issues between players about PC behavior at the table -- but such issues are not by defintion My Guy issues -- and certainly no one thinks it was in the case you cited.

Christopher

In my experience, both My Guy and Not My Guy come from problems with taking ownership of the storyline. Sometimes the GM doesn't allow real cooperation by insisting that she's the filter for all information that should apply to the session.

Everyone in the group needs to have a compatible vision for where a scene is going. There's nothing wrong with stepping out of character and chatting about it, or even with the GM making a directorial decision.

Really, why should anyone get to play their characters as they see fit, whether they're being deliberately obnoxious or not? There are online games for that. Unless the game is primarily a tactical exercises (including social tactics), the goal is to create an enjoyable narrative for everyone -- and not everyone likes the PCs throttling each other at inappropriate moments in the story.

When I GM, I have a couple of guidelines:

1) Absolute transparency. I get to know what the character's unspoken/secret intentions are, ask why X would do in Y situation and get a truthful answer, without omissions, every time. In my games your character does not have a right to privacy.

Many games where this stuff happens are games without a transparency clause. The character comes out of left field and frankly, the GM doesn't know enough about the character. Sometimes, the player doesn;t want anyone to know, because the rational of being in character is bogus.

2) You will renegotiate your actions at my insistence. Going to kill a character because it fits your character's personality? No -- no your aren't. This doesn't mean I utterly control character actions. It means I say: "That'd be bad for the game; what else would you like to do?" Usually, there's a way to resolve it. Get agreement from all partipants, do it and move the game along.

Cause you shouldn't me My Guy or Not My Guy in a tabletop game. You should be Our Guy. He;s there to entertain all of us.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: For this reason, I offer that the term Anit-My-Guy simply makes no sense...The term [My Guy] only refers to the excuse of "character" to justify destructive behavior.

greyorm wrote:

Christopher Kubasik wrote: For this reason, I offer that the term Anit-My-Guy simply makes no sense...The term [My Guy] only refers to the excuse of "character" to justify destructive behavior.

I agree with Chris in all this, as this is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier (with obviously limited success).

My Guy is a control issue, as Malcolm states: its about getting what you want by-any-means-necessary, and those means in most games are the character, because that's the only tool and control the player is allowed.

Mike Holmes wrote: What we're saying is that there's a problem on the Social Contract level when "My Guy" syndrome appears, by our definition. That the player in question is breaking the social contract implicit to all play about everyone having a good time. You wouldn't argue that if I punched you that this would be just my preference, would you? On the social level I'm sure that there are all sorts of things we can agree are "bad behavior".

John,

I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth (or in my text, as it were). Intent has absolutely nothing to do with "getting what you want by-any-means-necessary." The player does not, in any way, have to be conscious of this for it to occur, so forget what it "seems" I am saying.

Nor do I agree that "My Guy" syndrome has anything to do with the effect upon the enjoyment of other players -- it is purely a control issue. Saying "Yeah, well, my guy does X" or "My guy wouldn't ever" in order to maintain control of a situation, or rather, to derail the power of another participant (most often the gamemaster, though it could be another player) is where it is occuring.

So the issue you keep bringing up, "My character did this, and that bothered this other player" is not, not, not a My Guy issue. That event, to me, is purely an issue of Lines and Veils -- that situation is all about the Social Contract of the group in play, what's believed allowed and what isn't, with people's comfort levels and their expectations about play events.

So, that's why what you're discussing is not Anti-My Guy -- because the contrasted instance isn't My Guy.

Also, keep in mind we can't discuss My Guy in terms of discrete occurences, because they occur in a context, so those phrases about what a person's character can and will pop up during a completely functional game session!

greyorm wrote: Intent has absolutely nothing to do with "getting what you want by-any-means-necessary." The player does not, in any way, have to be conscious of this for it to occur, so forget what it "seems" I am saying.

Nor do I agree that "My Guy" syndrome has anything to do with the effect upon the enjoyment of other players -- it is purely a control issue. Saying "Yeah, well, my guy does X" or "My guy wouldn't ever" in order to maintain control of a situation, or rather, to derail the power of another participant (most often the gamemaster, though it could be another player) is where it is occuring.

Had a bit of a realization about My Guy tonite. Let's see if it helps any.

I was in a Mekton game. I was a late arrival in a years-long game, with most of the other players since graduated and moved on. Well, due to bad planning and worse execution, the players and one NPC, a large lizard-like alien, were at the mercy of the bad guys. They took the NPC away and the players managed to escape. Later we confronted the main bad guy (who was actually a flunky to the BIG big bad guy, but I digress) he was wearing the NPC's skin like a cloak. He killed and skinned the NPC. This made me sick to my stomach. This would have been a situation of "my Guy" with the GM being the one saying "My Guy." You guys don't really know but in person I rarely speak up about things.

I am now certain that My Guy is purely a symptom of a social issue at the table. Not necessarily someone gaining power by any means necessary. The GM in my example was the GM. No player has more power in most games.

I am thinking of John's example. Was the other player upset because John's character beat someone to death, or because his character beat a PC to death?

Was I sickened by the idea of a sentient being being killed and skined and made into clothing or was I sickened because that was mostly my fault for not making very good moves earlier.

I believe that it is both in my case, and possibly the other case.

It seems to me to either be social considerations interfering with the in-game events in way not really meant or one player causing events to please themselves without much though or poor judgement to the other players' possible reactions.

John, I quote the most relevant part of my previous post: Saying "Yeah, well, my guy does X" or "My guy wouldn't ever" in order to maintain control of a situation, or rather, to derail the power of another participant (most often the gamemaster, though it could be another player) is where it is occuring.

But this has to be IN CONTEXT. Your examples of someone using their in-game power as a character to overpower someone else's character is so not My Guy syndrome I'm not sure where to begin.

It occurs to me you're looking at all the little pieces as pieces, rather than a whole -- hence why I said IN CONTEXT. There has to be dysfunction going on for My Guy syndrome to be occuring, there has to be destrutive behavior.

As to the intent issue...I'm not sure how to put it...it appears you are talking about conscious intent. I'm not. The player who behaves "in order to gain control" is usually not even thinking "I'm doing this in order to gain control." It's a reaction rather than a choice, a behavior rather than a thought or a conscious strategy. That's why intent has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, that is why I'm saying your situation specifically is all about Lines & Veils, not My Guy. There's no dysfunctional attempt for control going on in your example -- just good, ol' fashioned breach of unspoken expectations. And that's why I feel Jack's post is all about the same thing -- it isn't "My Guy" GM, either.

greyorm wrote: It occurs to me you're looking at all the little pieces as pieces, rather than a whole -- hence why I said IN CONTEXT. There has to be dysfunction going on for My Guy syndrome to be occuring, there has to be destrutive behavior.
...
Regardless, that is why I'm saying your situation specifically is all about Lines & Veils, not My Guy. There's no dysfunctional attempt for control going on in your example -- just good, ol' fashioned breach of unspoken expectations. And that's why I feel Jack's post is all about the same thing -- it isn't "My Guy" GM, either.

John Kim wrote: The general situation is this: one player X says that her PC does something, and another player Y says that he doesn't like what that PC did -- that it hurts his enjoyment. Let's say we ignore intent. Who is right? You may say that we look to the Social Contract, but in most cases the Social Contract is implicit -- i.e. it is what all players agree to rather than a formal document. If players disagree, then there is no inherent authority to say who is right.

So "My Guy" syndrome is having your PC act in a way which adversely affects the enjoyment of another player. It is, as another poster put it, selfish because it makes the game less fun for player Y. That makes it a violation of Social Contract. Grimmond (my PC) acted in a way which made the game less enjoyable for Mark (another player). That makes me player X in my example.

M. J. Young wrote: O.K., I think that the problem is more one of degree here, maybe. My Guy syndrome isn't about the moment when you have your character do something someone else finds objectionable, and you say, "Well, I thought that's what my character would do, so I went with it." It's about when your character does something someone else finds objectionable, and you say, "Well, that's what my guy would do, and there's nothing you can do about it because he isn't your guy, he's my guy, so there."

M. J. Young wrote: Now, if by anti-my-guy we mean "everyone in the group is obliged to consider everyone else's feelings and limits during play, and not cross known lines if they can be avoided even if that's where it looks like they're character would go", then we have a relatively simple social contract issue--do we know what the lines are, and are we willing to stay within them? But if we mean "you can't do anything I don't like because I get veto power over everything that happens in the game" then yes, that's dysfunctional.

Hello,

John, I still don't see anything in your behavior that resembles what Paul originally described as the My-Guy Syndrome. I do see some possible power/control issues, just as you describe (i.e. what you say makes sense to me), but nothing like the My-Guy breakdown. That's usually characterized by the group breaking apart in a seriously negative way.

I really do think that you're latching onto a term, making it apply to something it doesn't, not liking the implications (as you see it as a criticism of a perfectly fine way to play), and then attacking the term.

Is it at all possible to ask you to take a break from the point-by-point exchange of positions, which tends to cement people into those positions, and just review that idea for a while?

Best,
Ron

Just wanted to remark that I too think My Guy is bandied about a little too loosely. A while ago, I raised a question about a certain player behaviour and all I got was "oh thats My Guy syndrome" - which I don't think it was. It strikes me as a form of throwing your hands in the air and saying "what can you do?" It means we have no vocabulary to address any but the most extreme case, and the moderate cases seesm to be lumped with the extreme. Simply put, I don't much like the term as it stands.

contracycle wrote: Just wanted to remark that I too think My Guy is bandied about a little too loosely. A while ago, I raised a question about a certain player behaviour and all I got was "oh thats My Guy syndrome" - which I don't think it was. It strikes me as a form of throwing your hands in the air and saying "what can you do?" It means we have no vocabulary to address any but the most extreme case, and the moderate cases seesm to be lumped with the extreme. Simply put, I don't much like the term as it stands.

To quickly recap, I think that, sure, My Guy get's bandied about too much, and like any simple answer will tend to get overappllied. But that doesn't mean it's not useful. Sometimes you can tell that a player is being an ass, and, when they are, it's My Guy syndrome. When they're not, it's probably a GNS issue. The fact that you redifined it for purposes of the thread as something larger, John, in order to attack it, doesn't mean that it never had an important meaning. It did, namely when it was defined as Paul defined it when he created the term. Sure, if people have warped it since then that's a bad thing. But that just means that people should be referred back to the original, working definition.

Now, I would say this. In "diagnosing" My Guy, I think that the best tactic is to assume from the start that it's a GNS issue and proceed as though it were one (unless it's glaringly obvious or something). Because if you do, then at the point at which you are being reasonable, and the other player becomes unreasonable, then at that point can you move on to calling it My Guy syndrome with some accuracy. Until then you could be misdiagnosing a simple misunderstanding.

Would that suffice to quell your fears of "Anti-My Guy Syndrome"? If we advocated a more careful diagnosis? And stuck to My Guy as the last resort diagnosis only when it becomes completely apparent? Because I do agree with you that this would be, by far, the best mode of operation here. What one can't do, obviously, is to assume that such a problem is My Guy from the start without any analysis. That's obviously a bogus approach. And what your player did in the example, I think.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: To quickly recap, I think that, sure, My Guy get's bandied about too much, and like any simple answer will tend to get overappllied. But that doesn't mean it's not useful. Sometimes you can tell that a player is being an ass, and, when they are, it's My Guy syndrome. When they're not, it's probably a GNS issue. The fact that you redifined it for purposes of the thread as something larger, John, in order to attack it, doesn't mean that it never had an important meaning.

Mike Holmes wrote: Would that suffice to quell your fears of "Anti-My Guy Syndrome"? If we advocated a more careful diagnosis? And stuck to My Guy as the last resort diagnosis only when it becomes completely apparent? Because I do agree with you that this would be, by far, the best mode of operation here. What one can't do, obviously, is to assume that such a problem is My Guy from the start without any analysis. That's obviously a bogus approach. And what your player did in the example, I think.

John, the only place that you and I differ on this is in how hard these things are to determine. I think that if one is educated on the subject, that it's pretty easy to remain objective about it, and avoid overdiagnosis: Anti-My Guy Syndrome. I don't know how you can see me as saying that it doesn't exist, when at every turn I keep saying that I agree with you that it does exist. If, by Syndrome, you mean that these misdiagnoses happen with a pattern, I'm sure you're right. I never said otherwise. And part of the reason is undoubtedly because of people talking about My Guy Syndrome irresponsibly. Part is an agenda to get away from Immersive play. Loads of reasons. Yep, I'm with you all the way.

But I still see the solution to the issue as one of making people aware of it. Because the phenomenon described by the original definition of My Guy happens. Shocked by previous play that makes the player feel that he can't trust the GM or other players, a player will cordon off his own space and play his character as he likes despite it being annoying to the other players. Remember that the player practicing My Guy is a victim of abuse, not somebody who's proactively using his interrperetation of his character to make for a good game. As such, the symptoms are obvious. And we can help these people as long as we acknowledge what's going on - a social level problem, not a GNS problem.

Psychiatrists in previous decades used to overdiagnose "Borderline Personality Syndrome". Many times as a way of marginalizing women and minorities. Did that mean that they should just have ignored that there was a problem for the people who did have it? Should they have dropped the categorization of the illness overall? No, they did the right thing and have tried since to educate doctors to spot the real thing. Your solution seems to me to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Psychiatrists in previous decades used to overdiagnose "Borderline Personality Syndrome". Many times as a way of marginalizing women and minorities. Did that mean that they should just have ignored that there was a problem for the people who did have it? Should they have dropped the categorization of the illness overall? No, they did the right thing and have tried since to educate doctors to spot the real thing. Your solution seems to me to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Hi there,

That's my exit-point, I think.

Neither "objective vs. subjective" nor "valid vs. invalid play" make a whole lot of sense to me, and I'm not even sure why they're being brought in as criteria or topics.

Carry on.

Best,
Ron