The Forge Archives

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

Quote from: lumpleyAt 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?

I've avoiding posting on those threads because of two reasons:

- I've got some very strong beliefs on the matter.
- I'm running a trade show this week.

But, this thread really pulled me out. I couldn't agree more with Vincent that some of us do want to claim our characters have this external reality. Why?

Because we fear to take responsibility for them.

My long-standing theory, which I should write more on one day, is that role-playing, especially in a narrativist context, is not dissimiliar in any way from the sort of role-playing that goes on in a psychiatrist's office. It's amateur group therapy - especially when you impose Premise and Theme and Other Capital Words that ask The Big Questions in life.

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:

QuoteSusan 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.

I'm not making a judgement based on that "yes," though. Humans are complex animals with a boatload of unresolved emotions, many of which are negative. They have to go somewhere, and I don't believe there's anything in life that those unresolved emotions don't touch, least of all role-playing, where you create a persona. The upside is this: sometimes, every once in a while, you have a great RPG session, one that allows to resolve an issue or emotion that drives a character and you can put it to bed.

I try to stay away from the wacky psychology, but if you thought this post rang true at all, do the following thought exercise:

- Write down three or four of your favorite characters.
- Write down what was going on in your life, not just at the time you were playing those characters, but from a year earlier.
- Look back and forth and notice parallels.

Doing this myself, I have specific characters that are:
- Sad-About-Divorce Clinton
- Really-Pissed-Off-Now-About-Divorce Clinton
- Attracted-to-Friend's-Wife Clinton
- Wishing-to-Enact-Justice-on-Loony-Parents Clinton

Looking at a character you've played over and over again with a different name and different face is another good exercise in this territory.

Quote from: lumpleyKnow 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 was just trying to play with the cutting edge of psychological plausibility.  No one else wanted to take it that way, so I let it go.  But as a die-hard atheist who normally poo-poos what I see as touchy-feely psychology, trying to drive it from the other side was enlightening.  And if starting a thread that annoys some folks is the price of helping me to think about an issue, I'll pay it every time.

But I don't want anyone I might ever game with to think that I actually think 'my guy' would do stuff that I don't want him to do.  No matter how disgusting or perverse (or caring and sensitive), I do want him to do it.

Chris

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.

Quote from: crucielIf 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.

I really think that's the consensus I'm expecting (or hoping for, at any rate) it to reach.  It just feels like one of those matters of "I hit you, no you didn't" that we actually are here to avoid.  Eventually, either someones going to get really mad, or everyone will keep there own opinion, taking away the fact that it's just one of those "To each his own" matters, better enlightened for knowing other people's outlook.  I'm really hoping for the latter.  I'll leave you all alone, since that's what every other uninterested person did from the start, and I've been to pig-headed lately to try it myself.  Best of Luck.

Quote from: ClintonTherefore, 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.

I've been noticing several different relationships players have with their characters.  I think this is just one of them.

The two I've got are:

1) The character is an image of the player as he would like to be.  The character does things as the player wishes he could, adhering to the player's beliefs or the beliefs the player wishes he had.  My example is one of our players.  He always plays a ranger, in every game, with the same basic personality - himself, except more noble.

2) The character is a very different person from the player, yet may still be said to be one element of the player's personality.  My example is myself.  My characters run a wide range of behaviors and beliefs, but if you try real hard you can see my romantic side expressed in Genevieve, my violent side expressed in Elliot, my nurturing side expressed in James, and my arrogant side expressed in Zel.

I think what you're talking about here:

Quote from: ClintonDoes 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.

Is yet another relationship, one I haven't personally observed.  BTW - Thank you very much for bringing this up.  I've been wondering recently about these relationships, and you've got some experience that it seems I don't.

I don't pass your test, so unless I'm missing a subtly, I'm pretty certain the relationship you're talking about cannot be the only one.  For example:

Genevieve - Rape survivor; overbearing sibling; general teenage girl problems (nope; I'm the oldest brother; was never a teenage girl)
Elliot - demon possessed commie; deceitful; cowardly (um...nope; nope; and I certainly hope not)
James - marooned in the wilds; his wife left him on account of being gone so long (I guess I was left at a gas station when I was 10...does that count?; I was never married)
Zel - sister complex; momma's boy; general stupidity (no sister; nope; and again, I certainly hope not).

Oh, and in our group I've got one player who doesn't fit into any of these...I still can't figure him out.

Both type 1 and 2 characters tend to contain aspects that the player finds admirable.  Let's keep using me as the example.  As shown by trends in my characters, I admire strength of will, intelligence, physical strength, and beauty.

*****

So, how does this connect?

Quote from: VincentKnow 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'm not certain anyone actually wants what you're asking about, but I'll leave it to those that want it to correct me.  

I do think there can be a very personal investment in a character, though the nature of this investment varies (see my above opinion on the matter).  People want acknowledgment of their beliefs, their feelings, or their troubles.  The more a character seems to exist the more attention the player receives in regards to whatever he is expressing in his character.  Now I've probably strayed too far into psychology; which I know nothing about, so no good can come of this I'm sure.

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