Heat of the Moment

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

That explains the difference of opinion. I'm a writer.

 

Do you write in the first person? If you've ever written stories from multiple POV's (for scenes where not every character is present), you can understand the "story that all players can share" from the reader's perspective; the story that you're writing for them contains more information than is available from any one character's direct perception.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Getting way off topic' date=' but I think many would argue that what you describe above (and I agree with) is NOT immersion at all. That immersion means losing yourself and any sense of the metagame and existing within the imaginary space. That being conscious of your desires as a player is the antithesis of immersion. Not saying I disagree with you... just the the term "immersion" is difficult to define... perhaps indefinable... yet may be the crux of the RPG experience, depending on your personal sense of immersion. [/quote']

 

This would be (to me) where we interact directly with each other, in our real bodies, as if we were the characters.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Getting way off topic, but I think many would argue that what you describe above (and I agree with) is NOT immersion at all. That immersion means losing yourself and any sense of the metagame and existing within the imaginary space. That being conscious of your desires as a player is the antithesis of immersion. Not saying I disagree with you... just the the term "immersion" is difficult to define... perhaps indefinable... yet may be the crux of the RPG experience, depending on your personal sense of immersion.

 

Bad choice of words on my part, and you are correct that in gaming immersion usually means different that what I was trying to convey.

I meant it in the sense of character immersion ..

Robyn said "I consider it a mark of good roleplaying that I can distinguish between ideas for what my character could do that come from my knowledge of the character, and ideas that come from my own desire to see something interesting happen in the game."

 

Whereas I wish to be so immersed in character that I can't tell the difference between those two, and hopefully, if I have designed the character right, those two things are indistinguisable from each other.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

*WARNING* Spoilers if you haven't watched the series Trigun and plan to.

 

To illustrate what I consider to be an appropriate "breaking" of one's Psych Limits, I give you Vash the Stampede from the anime Trigun.

 

Throughout the middle of the series, Vash as a particular nemisis named Legato. Legato is a man of pure evil. His has the power of mind control, and uses it to cause people to kill themselves and each other for his own entertainment and to fullfill some vision of the rightful destruction of the human race. Vash is a pacifist with one of the strictist codes versus killing I've ever sceen. Vash doesn't shoot bad guys, he shoots the guns out from their hands or finds some other way of disabling them. He even goes so far as to interceed in someone else's gunfight just to save lives.

 

At one point, Legato wants to punish Vash for his behavior and put him through the ultimate suffering. After killing bunches of innocent, and even not so innocent people, he corners Vash. He has two of Vash's friends help captive right before his eyes and has mind controlled innocent local to slowly torture and kill them right before Vash's eyes. Legato then mind controlls Vash to aim his gun straight at Legato's head, but doesn't force him to fire. Vash must kill Legato of his own free will or watch people slowly tortured to death. All the while, Legato is reminding Vash of all the evil he as done, why it is right to kill him and that if he doesn't, he's just going to go on killing more and more people while Vash is forced to watch helplessly.

 

Vash pulls the trigger, and breaks a vow he made to a dying woman who saved his life and taught him to believe there was always a way to solve problems without violence and death.

 

The next episode is completely devoted to Vash recovering from this, hating himself for the evil he did and how he failed the only person he truly loved, and truly loved him.

 

Did Vash break his code? Yes, but only after being cajoled into doing so by a madman who's sole purpose was to force him to do so.

 

At the end of the series, after coming to terms with what he had done, and forgiving himself for doing so, he confronts the man from his past that worked behind the scenes to put him through hell. Has he learned it's alright to kill if the badguy is evil enough? No. He's learned that one lapse in judgment doesn't prove the lapse to be the correct action. He spare's his enemy's life and chooses instead to keep him where he can no longer to anyone harm.

 

Note: At least that's the story in the anime. I hear it had a different ending in the manga.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Robyn said "I consider it a mark of good roleplaying that I can distinguish between ideas for what my character could do that come from my knowledge of the character, and ideas that come from my own desire to see something interesting happen in the game."

 

Whereas I wish to be so immersed in character that I can't tell the difference between those two, and hopefully, if I have designed the character right, those two things are indistinguisable from each other.

 

Whereas I agree with you

 

[Wait, what?]

 

Being immersed, in-character, as opposed to blending (or merging) the character and the player, requires a sort of mental "shielding", or compartmentalization: you need to keep your own thoughts and feelings and desires, apart from the character's, which means "separate from the area of my mind that is handling the character". Being indistinguishable means being able to filter out the parts that are uniquely "you", not changing the character to be identical to its player. When I have successfully suppressed myself this way, and there are only two parts of my mind awake - the part emulating the character, and the part intercepting perception and action to translate what the players around me say to what my character would perceive, and vice versa so I don't act out my character's actions - I experience immersive roleplaying.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Do you write in the first person? If you've ever written stories from multiple POV's (for scenes where not every character is present)' date=' you can understand the "story that all players can share" from the [i']reader's[/i] perspective; the story that you're writing for them contains more information than is available from any one character's direct perception.

 

I write in whichever perspective suits how I want the story to be read. In other words, how much information I feel the reader should have as the story progresses. In all cases though, I, the writer, possess all the knowledge and will know what the character doesn't, so even when writing first person the actions of the other characters remain constant and believable.

 

The same applies in a role-playing game. Each player is "writing" the story of their character in first person, but they have a restricted third person point of view because they, the players, can get inside the heads of the other characters through out-of-game dialog with the other players and the GM. They are also aware of everything that happens to a player character, even if their character isn't there and doesn't know. Knowing this information can help them dictate their character's actions to make for a better story, and still allow them to act in character.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Whereas I wish to be so immersed in character that I can't tell the difference between those two, and hopefully, if I have designed the character right, those two things are indistinguisable from each other.

 

Gotcha... I just wouldn't (again) use the word immersed. To me this means, as you stated, a well designed character. There is no conflict between the imaginary qualities you've assigned to the character, and the play experience you (the player) want to enjoy with the character. This, to me, is the holy grail of role playing... likely more of the unreachable platonic ideal. Our imperfect understanding of ourselves, RPG systems that are not reality thus can never truly simulate reality, the inherent imperfect communication between players sharing the experience, and our changing desires as humans from moment to moment means that we will never truly achieve perfect character/player sympatico.

 

But it's worth shooting for!

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Whereas I agree with you

 

[Wait, what?]

 

Being indistinguishable means being able to filter out the parts that are uniquely "you", not changing the character to be identical to its player.

 

Wheras, I try to filter such things into the character. I think of the character as part of me, that I put my conciousness into, rather than something sepreate. I also design character to have the same biases and personality that is the base of mine - there are things I cannot concieve of doing - and so, thusly, do my characters.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Gotcha... I just wouldn't (again) use the word immersed. To me this means, as you stated, a well designed character. There is no conflict between the imaginary qualities you've assigned to the character, and the play experience you (the player) want to enjoy with the character. This, to me, is the holy grail of role playing... likely more of the unreachable platonic ideal.

 

But it's worth shooting for!

 

 

Okay. Makes sense to me.

That is one of the things that being married to your GM, who also has been gaming for over 20 years does for you - you get that incredible level of communication when playing solo, and get that kind of play.

 

*Gloat gloat gloat*

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Wheras' date=' I try to filter such things[b'] into[/b] the character. I think of the character as part of me, that I put my conciousness into, rather than something sepreate. I also design character to have the same biases and personality that is the base of mine - there are things I cannot concieve of doing - and so, thusly, do my characters.

 

:cringe:

 

We have vastly different styles, then. I could not take such an approach without ending up with indistinguishable characters, all the same as me.

 

I don't have fun playing with the people who, even if their character is a cleric, they're playing that fighter - always the same personality, just a different name - and I don't think of it as any fun to play me in the games. I get to play myself all the time, for Pete's sake. I'm boring. Let me be someone else for a change.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

:cringe:

 

We have vastly different styles, then. I could not take such an approach without ending up with indistinguishable characters, all the same as me.

 

I don't have fun playing with the people who, even if their character is a cleric, they're playing that fighter - always the same personality, just a different name - and I don't think of it as any fun to play me in the games. I get to play myself all the time, for Pete's sake. I'm boring. Let me be someone else for a change.

 

. I'm of the same opinion, but it can be fun sometimes. There are stereotypes in stories of all kinds if a particular player can only play their own stereotype, I'll let them. But I don't encourage them.

 

Myself, I do put a little bit of me into each of the characters I play, but they aren't remotely identical. One way I sometimes think of it is to seperate all my wants, needs, urges, thoughts, feelings, whatever into seperate voices, pick one, and build a character around it. Sometimes I just make the character and see which voice wants to crawl inside. Each character is unique, but each has just enough of me that I'm not playing something totally alien to my way of thinking.

 

It's different when I'm GMing though. Almost no NPC I've used has any bit of me in them. I'll role-play them the best I can, but from behind the GM screne they are just playing pieces I use to entertain the players. And I never really have the time to "get into" any of the NPCs when I run a game, especially when I have to change hats so often.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Myself, I do put a little bit of me into each of the characters I play, but they aren't remotely identical. One way I sometimes think of it is to seperate all my wants, needs, urges, thoughts, feelings, whatever into seperate voices, pick one, and build a character around it. Sometimes I just make the character and see which voice wants to crawl inside. Each character is unique, but each has just enough of me that I'm not playing something totally alien to my way of thinking.

 

Yah Boy-eee!

 

I'm not at either extreme. The character is not a part of me, nor does it have all the same values as me... but it is a reflection of me. I've played nasty, practically evil characters who would do things I'd never do... but I did so consciously, choosing to explore that voice of mine that says, "But sometimes I'd like to..." That to me is the personal experience of role playing. Exploring, with a group, making decisions and doing things you couldn't and/or wouldn't do in reality.

 

The character is not "other" and is not "me." It is an abstract creation with which I can explore something important or interesting to me, from moral issues to kicking in the door and spraying the room. I think it is this way for everyone... just not everyone realizes it.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

:cringe:

 

We have vastly different styles, then. I could not take such an approach without ending up with indistinguishable characters, all the same as me.

 

Not that the characters are all me, or all the same, but there are certain aspects of my personality, that if the character didn't share, I couldn't play the character. I, personally, cannot abide abuse of the helpless - that is in common with all by characters, because I couldn't (and wouldn't want to try) to put myself into a mindset of someone who didn't care.

 

So there are certain "themes" and "types" that run through my characters, but they individually are all different.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If you have good players they will already be roleplaying out this kind of struggle. I've even had it happen. No joke. Don't believe me?

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Or any number of Interaction Skills such as Persuasion.

 

Interaction skills provide a bonus to presence attacks.

 

Oh and incidentally, that kind of loss of control is bad for your DCV. You'd get the same kind of DCV penalty that you would if it was an intimidating PRE attack.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I get to play myself all the time' date=' for Pete's sake. I'm [i']boring[/i]. Let me be someone else for a change.

 

Me, I play for playing to do something I can't, rathing than being someone I'm not.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I can't imagine that to be a terribly popular game mechanic;

 

Interesting. They say that, in a roleplaying game, there are no winners or losers, or that everyone is a winner, or something to that effect; I wonder if one of our victory conditions is "The power to exert a control over our lives that we lack in reality."

 

Have you ever been to an arcade and played - no, wait. Bad question. Let me rephrase:

 

Have you ever been to an arcade and seen someone playing pinball? Someone who is really good at it?

 

Well, in The Dying Earth, your characters are those balls. The popularity of the game, however, seems to attest to their success in observing "Hey, wow, look at how everyone can lose when the dice go against them . . . you know, I bet we could make this fun ", and making a game out of it.

 

There's an odd freedom to be found in knowing that fortunes can depart as suddenly as they've arrived, and that your character's convictions can be reversed in the space of a moment by an adequately eloquent appeal

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Yah Boy-eee!

 

I'm not at either extreme. The character is not a part of me, nor does it have all the same values as me... but it is a reflection of me. I've played nasty, practically evil characters who would do things I'd never do... but I did so consciously, choosing to explore that voice of mine that says, "But sometimes I'd like to..." That to me is the personal experience of role playing. Exploring, with a group, making decisions and doing things you couldn't and/or wouldn't do in reality.

 

The character is not "other" and is not "me." It is an abstract creation with which I can explore something important or interesting to me, from moral issues to kicking in the door and spraying the room. I think it is this way for everyone... just not everyone realizes it.

 

I like the way you put that.

 

I like to think that everything a character of mine does is something that at least part of me would do so long as the rest of me wasn't there to slap me back into reality. Steal, murder, wipe a country off the face of the planet, kill millions of innocents just to prove a point? Sure, some part of me wants to do these things every now and then. I never would, too much of me reminds of why I shouldn't. Rape... nowhere to be seen in the thoughts and actions of my characters, no matter how evil they are (and I have played evil characters as player characters before... they can be quite fun). No part of me would do that.

 

But I'm digressing again...

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

The character is not "other" and is not "me." It is an abstract creation with which I can explore something important or interesting to me' date=' from moral issues to kicking in the door and spraying the room. I think it is this way for everyone... just not everyone realizes it.[/quote']

 

I do realize, but I think it's important to be able to distinguish between that which, because we don't find it important or interesting, we decline to personally play - and that which doesn't exist. I disagree with the first part though, to some degree, because of the Civil War Reenactment people who, to some extent, are roleplaying - but we don't say that they are the people who fought in the Civil War, nor do we say that, if not for them recreating the history, it would not have happened.

 

There is a fine line between the simulation of historical events and the simulation of imaginary histories; their implementation need not inherently differ.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

"The power to exert a control over our lives that we lack in reality."

 

That quote is the reason I play RPGs.

[incrdbil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

There's an odd freedom to be found in knowing that fortunes can depart as suddenly as they've arrived, and that your character's convictions can be reversed in the space of a moment by an adequately eloquent appeal

 

To me, there's nothign appealing about a change in conviction or action happening mechanically if I, the player, have come to the conclusion about what my character would do. This takes into account sensible exceptions, such as playing a character with some mental programming, or had been determined to have sufferred stress to periodically go insane and leave my control, or similar situations. If the genre has some built in 'insanity' mechanic..well, I dont know why I'd be playing such a system in the first place anyway.

 

Trying to set some rule down about change of behavior in the situation I understand the original topic to be about, actually undermines roleplaying, at least IMO. To me, there's no freedom if a clunk of the dice tells you that your character suddenly thinks another way (again, excluding reasonabel exceptions, especially those self imposed in apsych limitations of some form).

If you are going to have a roleplaying game, the only appropriaiate decision maker for a character is the player.

 

I also use the mechanics from The Dying Earth, and their main function is to govern persuasion! ...... If an NPC makes their roll, and you fail yours, you are then convinced, and must roleplay your character as if they truly believe what they were told.

 

Perhaps its just personal tatses, but the above just turns me off.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

To me' date=' there's nothign appealing about a change in conviction or action happening mechanically if I, the player, have come to the conclusion about what my character would do.[/quote']

 

Err . . . changes in action from what you have decided that your character will do take place all the time. They're called "rolling the dice, and failing at your objective"

 

The question, though, is whether it is realistic for a change in conviction to be taking place when your character has made up their mind about what they are going to do. To answer that, we need to look at real life; and, honestly, can you really say that you have never, in your entire life, decided to do one thing and then, later on, changed your mind?

 

The factors that affect us make sense at the time, whether or not they are objectively "true".

 

To me' date=' there's no freedom if a clunk of the dice tells you that your character suddenly thinks another way (again, excluding reasonabel exceptions, especially those self imposed in apsych limitations of some form).[/quote']

 

To clarify, this isn't a random, out of the blue, roll of the dice to affect your character. It's a part of the core system, and the mechanics are simply the use of dice to determine the outcome when one character tries to persuade another into/of something - regardless of whether there is a player behind any particular character or not. After all, why should NPC's be the only ones who end up on the losing side of a Persuasion attempt?

 

If you are going to have a roleplaying game' date=' the only appropriaiate decision maker for a character is the player.[/quote']

 

Since the "player" is the one "playing" the character, yes; they're the only one(s) who can give the final report on the character's intentions, thoughts, feelings, actions, and all the rest. But there are different ways of roleplaying, and some players (and GM's) believe that the role of a player does not come with just power. It also comes with responsibility. A responsibility, namely, to play that character accurately. Which may mean taking advice from other people.

 

At the crux of The Dying Earth's mechanics is the rather un-Western belief that our feelings of control over our own choices is just an illusion, and the true governing power is more chaotic than we would be comfortable with. But, on the other hand, that's one of the traits that people from The Dying Earth have that significantly differ from our world; they realize that their lives are merely leaves tossed on the stormy seas of chance, and yet still manage to keep a positive outlook on things.

 

Perhaps its just personal tatses' date=' but the above just turns me off.[/quote']

 

Then don't play it. Just don't keep telling the rest of us, whose only sin is enjoying a style of RP that you don't (but many others do - again, the popularity of the game is a testament to its success), that there's anything flawed or wrong with the way we roleplay.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Then don't play it. Just don't keep telling the rest of us' date=' whose only sin is enjoying a style of RP that you don't (but many others do - again, the popularity of the game is a testament to its success), that there's anything flawed or wrong with the way we roleplay.[/quote']

No one has said that, that I'm aware of.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

No one has said that' date=' that I'm aware of.[/quote']

 

Hmm . . . in review I have to agree with you. The middle sentence here looked a bit iffy, but considering how careful incrdbil has been to mark each statement as being what he thinks, not an absolute what is, I think it's safe for me to assume it was all intended that way.

 

Sorry about the misunderstanding. After a while of being told that sort of thing you start to get an echo in there

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Wow. I'm not even going to go into all the various posts to try and keep up - there's a lot of good material here and clearly this is a hot button topic. So I'm going to weigh in on my thoughts on the matter. YMMV.

 

1. Psych lims exist to give the player a benefit for creating a character, someone with depth and flaws and the capability of making mistakes. Some of those flaws carry a roll with them - some of them don't. Generally speaking, I enforce psych lims only when dramatically appropriate, or when the player designed their character with a lim that borders on the absolute so common sense doesn't always work. Generally, my players are savvy enough that they're aware if I feel - and can support - that they've purchased the LIM, for THEMSELVES that should have an effect, I will enforce it. I generally try to avoid this though.

 

2. In d20, if you want someone to 'be afraid' you can force a Fear check or a Will Save. If you want them to snap in "the heat of the moment" I firmly and completely fall on the side of those who say that's what makes role-playing ROLE playing and not ROLL playing. If I were in the midst of a deep character struggle and some GM who wants to "add drama" forces me to swing one way, I would feel incredibly rail-roaded. I would also feel robbed.

 

That's MY roleplay. That's MY time to shine. Don't have me make a roll - or worse, make the decision for me - about whether or not my Paladin would Fall on the whim of a mechanic. That's not roleplaying. That wouldn't even by fun.