Heat of the Moment

[ghost-angel]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Hmm . . . in review I have to agree with you. The middle sentence here looked a bit iffy' date=' but considering how careful incrdbil has been to mark each statement as being what he thinks, not an absolute [u']what is[/u], 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

No problem. Many of us are very careful to not tell someone they're wrong, or to at least tack on a "IMO" or "I think."

 

We've lost many good posters to those kinds of flame wars and don't want to lose any more.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I don't see why the two can't coexist. Just as you explain below, it is possible that "accurate simulation" will be "what the player wants to do".

 

No disagreement... but "accurate"... what does that mean? In the end, isn't it going to be what the play group agrees they like? In many cases two decisions may be "in character" and thus accurate and the player by himself or with group input has to decide which way to go... so it has nothing to do with accurate portrayal, but what the group thinks is "cool" (and yes, there are a lot of ways things can be cool.)

 

It may be a one-sided relationship (the player receiving their emotions and socializing voyeuristically, through the character), but it's not parasitic: even when the player doesn't (can't) give anything back to the character, the player doesn't leech emotions from the character.

 

You lost me here. Give and take from the character? What does this mean? The character is an imaginary thing that has no emotions to give or take... nor ability to do so. Any qualities assigned to a character are not real except that they are already the emotions valued in some way by the player.

 

 

 

So you reject, then, that it is possible for players to all possess (and share) insights upon what desires and feelings and thoughts a "real" person had?

 

Not at all, but characters aren't real people. And I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm just not sure what you are saying here.

 

 

 

Or we could agree that it matches our desires for a realistic recreation, even if it isn't "fun".

 

You wouldn't continue with such "realism" if you didn't find it fun or enjoyable in some way. "Serious" can be fun... fun doesn't have to be whimsical and goofy.

 

 

 

You acknowledge, then, that a smaller section of that group (the individual) would also be unable to perfectly reconstruct what once was?

 

Again, I'm kinda lost here, but no reconstruction in any manner by any number of people could be "perfect." I don't even know what perfect might be? Accuracy, perfection, serious... these are all just "what your group finds cool and fun."

 

 

 

What you seem to be describing is the reverse of role-playing . . . where the characters act out the role of their players. I'm thinking of RP'ing as emulation to the point where we can extract their desires and emotions, house them in our imaginations and in our real bodies, then interact directly with each other as if we were the characters.

 

"They" don't exist... and any desires/emotions "they" might have are your own. Perhaps there is an altered state of mind achieved by the mental process of disassociating your own desires/preferences into an imaginary being, then manifesting them in your own words and actions... a way of saying "It isn't me doing this" thus giving yourself a sense of freedom to explore those things... I'm just skipping the middle man and admitting that it is my own ideas/emotions/thoughts and desires I'm exploring.

 

 

Isn't this what we do when we accept that our characters have just died?

 

Not always, and in the better games, no. In games I would call "good" I have found enjoyment in the death of a character whose death was "good Story" or fulfilled my own sense of sacrifice, or it just seemed appropriate from the milieu. There could be a sense of loss, but this doesn't mean it wasn't enjoyable or rewarding in some way.

 

 

 

First of all, I consider it a mark of control that I can, not that I (always) do. Secondly, there are many situations in which I can see actions that would lead to a better story for the campaign, but not for my character personally. Thirdly, and most relevantly to the paragraph just above, I can see many ideas with different levels of "coolness"; just because I keep myself from pursuing the best idea, does not mean I have completely abandoned all coolness.

 

Exactly... but in all the above, you the player have made a decision about what you think is cool. Even when you are in what you feel is full "sim" mode, I doubt very much you 100% simulate every aspect of your character's life. You don't go to the bathroom "in character" do you? On a more serious note, I'm sure there have been moments when the GM says, "Ok... then we move on to the next morning," which is a situation where you decided not to simulate every aspect, but made a metagame decision about what was "cool" and worth playing out. Such decisions are made all the time in role playing, often unconsciously.

 

It's not the character making you do something... you are doing what you want through the character.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

No problem. Many of us are very careful to not tell someone they're wrong, or to at least tack on a "IMO" or "I think."

 

We've lost many good posters to those kinds of flame wars and don't want to lose any more.

 

 

Yeah. I second that one. I get a little emphatic about my playstyle when discussing such things. I try to leave it in the "for me" kind of disclaimers.

 

This has been a fun topic, even if it has got a little heated.

[incrdbil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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"

 

Of course they do. I am referring to the topic of the thread which deals with changes in the players decision as to what his character does--or at least a loss of control of that decision.

 

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.

 

That is up to the player to decide.

 

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?

 

And thats what a players normal role playing is supposed to represent--decisions made based on the personality and current circumstances. There is nothing about 'real life' decisions that seem to require a mechanic to determine a players decisions for his characters any more than a players normal judgement that suffices for the majority of his playing time. What I mean, there's nothign about real life crisis that suggests to me a player's judgement should be supplanted or restricted by certain mechanids for purely role pay decisions. You can have presence effects, mind controls, all that..but I think that a players judgement suffices for what he does when Villain X is cornered at long last just as much as it was fine when he was taking out his lackies in a far less stressful combat.

 

 

After all, why should NPC's be the only ones who end up on the losing side of a Persuasion attempt?

 

Maybe they should resist. But players are different, and far more important than NPC's. A player has one character to worry about, the GM has everyone else; A GM doesn't have time to deeply sink into every NPC, which is what many systems use such interaction mechanics for. Its common though for GM's to forgo persuasion rolls altogether, or only use them after applying heavy modifiers via roleplay. I'm not going to let a bad dice roll punish a player who makes what I deem an effective form of social interaction. As for dictating what players must do--well, the vast majority of games I play do not impose such conditions on players; they are almost always allowed to not obey the dice on persuasion attempts. They may fail in negotiations, they may not get what they want, the price they want, but they are never obligated to do what a NPC says, or agree to a transaction purely on the NPC's terms purely based on dice rolls. If you enjoy such a system, I am glad for you. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

. 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.

 

Others may disagree how a character should be played, but only the player gets to make the final decision. In a complete disagreement, the GM may impose penalties related to poor roleplay, and if the PC disagrees strongly enough, there is always the door. It seems contrary to the purpose of roleplaying to have a players actions overridden because the others players think his character would do something differently, if that player has a strong, character background based belief that his action is appropriate. Its the player's character, not a group character.

 

Even at the boundaries of that point of a PC's announced action being different than what the situation would seemingly indicate, you have to give some leeway simply to the fact that sometimes people behave erratically, and sometimes they refuse to give in to temptation no matter how overwhelming it may be. Of course, this is not an excuse for outright confrontational, metagaming behavior, or intentional party sabotage, or actions borne from out-of-game motivations. There's such a wide range of behaviors that many conditional exceptions apply.

 

A player should be open to the input of others. A group can give valuable input, correct a mistaken communication, or fill in a vital detail the character would be aware of, but the player missed in the heat of the moment. But the player is the person you have to sell the 'accuracy' of an action to; if in his heart the player disagrees that his character would do, or not do something, then making him do something else is difficult to call accurate. Some players will simply let this slide and move along, because the show must go on, others might not take it so well.

 

 

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.

 

Just stating an opinion--something you get when you initiate a topic. I expressed my feelings, not a judgment on anyone else because they enjoy game X. I'm glad you do enjoy it.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Replying to these out of order - reply to RDU Neil forthcoming after this quickie.

 

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.

That is up to the player to decide.

 

That is where we disagree, though perhaps only through timing: that sort of decision was made, for me, before acquiring a sense of ownership about any particular character. Since there was no specific player associated with any specific character yet, I had to look for a theoretical answer; "objectively" speaking, is it realistic? The realism came from comparison with "reality"; it happens in the real world, so it would be realistic in a game world too. In practice (as opposed to theory), we don't want to give up control over "our" character, but it might have been easier for me because I'd known not to see it as entirely "my" character since before I even got attached. Approaches from the theoretical side can be just as valid, but tend to give different results, I've noticed.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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

 

Writer vs. Actor is an age old fight... unfortunately it's usually the actor that takes the blame if it goes wrong, and the credit if it goes right.

 

Firstly' date=' what I aspire to in playing a role playing game is that [eventually'] the character's actions are his own, not the player's. The character reacts according to his back story and psych lims, not the player's. The best characters are really no longer '100% in the player's hands."

From my perspective, there is little difference between the two, except that the player has knowledge the character doesn't. That difference is essential to telling a story or else the character's actions will be about as exciting and entertaining as everyday reality, and probably will less of plot.

 

I'm a little confused as to what you mean here. There is a huge difference between the actions of the player and the actions of the character. Most players have never been in a gunfight, let alone a super battle. The character must act and react in a way that is truthful to the situation. Granted, it is never 100% in either direction, the character has been created by the player, and is therefore a part of him to begin with. Theoretically though, the character evolves into much more than that, and can eventually 'leap off the page' and be his 'own man' - which yes, is an amalgamation of the player and the character.

 

To look at Superman or Batman, or most of the X-Men for example... these characters are very well defined. They don't require a player, they are their own people.

 

Secondly' date=' psych lims are guidelines that come from somewhere in the character's back story. They are not immutable. If I want a Psychological Rule/Limitation that I can't break, I would play a video game wherein the controls do not allow me to take certain actions. Of course any breaks must have character justification within the drama and context of the story.[/quote']

 

I agree that a Psych Limit is never immutable. Characters, at least good ones, grow and develop and change. However, this change rarely happens at the drop of a hat and it is simply bad role-playing and worse storytelling to have a character ignore key elements to his (albeit changing) personality just to suit the current circumstances.

 

Oh never would I say that the character should [or even could] change at the drop of a hat, please don't think that I meant that. I thought I was pretty clear with that phrase "must have character justification within the drama and context of the story."

 

Thirdly' date=' I believe that great drama such as facing your final nemesis is one of the main things that should allow you to break your Psych Lims. You must understand though, I believe it has to be earned in character - the character must go through a development and finally through conflict come to a realization that allows her to break the psych lim. That doesn't necessarily mean that psych lim is gone, just that it may be temporarily overridden in the face of great drama.[/quote']

 

This is where I most vehemently dissagree. I've never been satisfied by a hero (of any type) that breaks his code (whatever it is) just to make for a dramatic scene. If it were a movie or a book, I'd call it bad writing. If the story was written in such a way that forced the character's hand (through cohersion rather than something like Mind Control), drove him temporarily insane or something similar, it would make for a dramatic and movie scene. But when Never Kills Heroman finally confronts his nemisis and just offs him with no pretense more than a "please don't make me shoot you" police drama, I don't buy it. It's fake and everybody knows it's fake.

 

No no no. Never just to make for a dramatic scene. I would agree that if Batman's 'player' for example, had him kill a common thug, yeah, that would be ridiculously bad roleplaying and the GM should not let that happen.

 

But if at the end of many stories, the Joker having pushed him to the edge and beyond, it is conceivable that the Batman would be able to make the decision to kill the Joker, as the Joker has done to most everyone that Bruce cared about.

 

Now that makes for great drama. Bruce overcomes his psych lim momentarily to push the story foreward, but of course he is stopped by Jim Gordon. Wow, fantastic, even more drama!!!

 

Character arcs are what great roleplaying is all about.

 

My focus is foremost on telling a great story' date=' with great and memorable characters - great and memorable moments, and I will not allow any mechanic to stand in the way of that.[/quote']

 

Agreed, 100%. I suppose we just disagree on whether or not certain mechans actually stand in the way.

 

I believe that any mechanics that would take the decision out of the character's hands are mechanics that are standing in the way.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

No disagreement... but "accurate"... what does that mean? In the end' date=' isn't it going to be what the play group agrees they like?[/quote']

 

Only if we can't determine realism objectively, and since we can easily see that things happen in real life which aren't enjoyable or fun for us in any way, that seems unlikely. There are ways to determine what is realistic without coming back to what we like; for example, there can be a game based off of historical events.

 

In many cases two decisions may be "in character" and thus accurate and the player by himself or with group input has to decide which way to go... so it has nothing to do with accurate portrayal' date=' but what the group thinks is "cool" (and yes, there are a lot of ways things can be cool.)[/quote']

 

You're going a little bit too far here . . . yes, it does have something to do with what the player/group wants to have happen, but that doesn't mean it has "nothing" to do with accurate portrayal. It works like this: accurate portrayal gives you the available slate of actions from which to choose, personal preference comes into play then and only then, and can't give you more options, just help you choose between what "accurate portrayal" put there.

 

You lost me here. Give and take from the character? What does this mean? The character is an imaginary thing that has no emotions to give or take... nor ability to do so.

 

Neither does a boyfriend, then

 

It doesn't matter whether the "other person" is imaginary or not; we don't have empathic conduits stretching between us. We only have our perceptions of other people, telling us what they appear to be feeling, and on the lowest levels that's just information. A portrait, or emotional profile, of another person.

 

Imagine the standard symbiotic relationship. A (with XXXXY) and B (with XYYYY) are attached to each other, B receiving (1X) from A and A receiving (1Y) from B, so that now A has (XXXYY) and B has (XXYYY).

 

Now imagine the standard parasitic relationship. A and B are attached to each other, but while A takes Y from B, B gets nothing from A.

 

In all cases, what they receive is what they wouldn't normally be able to get. It doesn't matter whether X, Y, or Z is "stability", and you're mistaking fiercely repressed anger for a peaceful calmness, because you're "receiving" something based on your perception of them, not how they "actually are". (What you derive from your impressions of other people may coincidentally be what they possess, but what you get is not based off of - or drawn from - what they have.) Such relationships are not parasitic, because you can extract whatever you wish from your perception of them without reducing what they actually have.

 

It's basically virtual resources, in the same way as software can be duplicated to create additional "goods" without requiring even more raw material. This is also the principle that lets us read books to obtain ideas that we wouldn't have had otherwise, without causing degeneration in the quality of the story therein.

 

The character, when different from ourselves, enables us to come up with emotions and thoughts for that "virtual mind" inside ourselves that we wouldn't have been able to normally. It's just like constructing an impression of our boyfriends/girlfriends, whether we base that off of direct interaction, historical accounts, TV (for our favorite pop icons), or the verbal description of some talented storyteller.

 

Not at all' date=' but characters aren't real people. And I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm just not sure what you are saying here.[/quote']

 

It started when I said: "the other players are tapped as resources to provide insight and advice on how the character thinks and feels."

 

And then you said: "The above is exactly what I'm a proponent for, but this is, in no way, simulation"

 

Which is when I asked: "So you reject, then, that it is possible for players to all possess (and share) insights upon what desires and feelings and thoughts a "real" person had?"

 

And that's where we are. The theory of it I just explained above, in detail, so I won't repeat it here; but I will give a real-life example of it "in action". In the real world, we talk to each other about what we think of someone else, and what we've figured out about how their minds work ("Hey, I think I've figured out what's up with what's-his-name . . . "), and we use some of that (but not, trustingly, all of it) to develop our impressions of them. Of those impressions, though, we cannot accurately say that these are the other people; they are, in effect, a simulation. We think, in real life, about what other people are likely to do, how they might react, and we use that to modify our own actions, how we behave around them. We can utilize the same techniques for historical recreation ("How would this General have reacted, faced with this situation?"), or for emulating people our historical records have no proof of (i.e., "made up").

 

Characters aren't "real" people in the fullest sense of the word, but they don't need to be. They are, to the extent that they need to be for us to draw enjoyable emotions from them, "real" - and if that isn't sufficient, nor will regular human company be. (My sole disclaimer: irregular human company, such as a genuine telepath, would be an exception.)

 

You wouldn't continue with such "realism" if you didn't find it fun or enjoyable in some way. "Serious" can be fun... fun doesn't have to be whimsical and goofy.

 

Must all soldiers, then, find the atrocities they are forced to commit in defense of their country and loved ones to be "fun" or "enjoyable" in some way?

 

Some of us do things solely for our own pleasure. Some of us recognize a higher purpose (or "lower", from the hedonist's viewpoint). Mine is the truth* - it is "realistic" because that's closer to the way things really are (or, at least, really would be), and because I experience a sort of displeasure (though its lack does not really qualify as a value) from seeing that things are unrealistic.

*edit#2: clarification - I recognize "the truth" as a "higher purpose"

Again' date=' I'm kinda lost here, but no reconstruction in any manner by any number of people could be "perfect."[/quote']

 

You accept, then, that there will always be insights which we do not possess? It would seem to behoove us, then, in the search after truth, to integrate as much assistance as we can garner.

 

But, on a closer examination, such a reckless course would not always be the wisest course of action; the truth of an insight is often indiscernible, and attempting to reconstruct a puzzle with critical pieces missing could end up misrepresenting the original even worse than a complete absence of those contextless pieces would have. So, we exercise caution with the advice we listen to, and heed only that which best fits with what has already been established for the character.

 

I don't even know what perfect might be? Accuracy' date=' perfection, serious... these are all just "what your group finds cool and fun."[/quote']

 

Perfection is "no room for improvement". It exists at one end of the spectrum, and cannot be measured as a position in between both ends of the scale. Accuracy, on the other hand, can be. But, again, they need not be limited to "what the group finds cool and fun". I doubt, for example, that insurance agencies, architects, and the Natural Security Agency find much to be "cool and fun" in reconstructing exactly what happened during accidents, natural emergencies such as earthquakes and hurricanes, or terrorist attacks; but they do place a very high value upon the accurate simulation of those events, realizing that they need to understand them to prevent the like from happening again in future. Our motives may not be as influential to the larger world, but our personal focus does not limit our ability to think like that.

 

"They" don't exist... and any desires/emotions "they" might have are your own.

 

They become your own at the moment you choose to let them do so - which you may, since dispassionately working out what someone would do, in a logical diagram, may tell you what they are likely to do, but if what you're after is feeling those emotions as your own, you need to try to recreate them somehow.

 

If that means altering a compartment of your own mind to resemble theirs, to become something other than your natural self, then so be it.

 

Perhaps there is an altered state of mind achieved by the mental process of disassociating your own desires/preferences into an imaginary being' date=' then manifesting them in your own words and actions... a way of saying "It isn't me doing this" thus giving yourself a sense of freedom to explore those things...[/quote']

 

That must be the technique used by every criminal profiler who logically, mathematically, and dispassionately works out what the criminal is going to do and how they are thinking. They're not really trying to help people, by taking advantage of their ability to compartmentalize their own minds and understand someone else even without being anything like them, they're just psychopaths who are being used by the system to catch others like them

 

I'm just skipping the middle man and admitting that it is my own ideas/emotions/thoughts and desires I'm exploring.

 

It may be that you are incapable of such techniques, or that they just didn't work for you; but, really, is that any reason to declare that they don't work for anyone? That, essentially, everyone else's mind works just as yours does, with all inherent limitations and underlying rules of operation?

 

Not always' date=' and in the better games, no. In games I would call "good" I have found enjoyment in the death of a character whose death was "good Story" or fulfilled my own sense of sacrifice, or it just seemed appropriate from the milieu. There could be a sense of loss, but this doesn't mean it wasn't enjoyable or rewarding in some way.[/quote']

 

On the other hand, it is possible for this to happen in the natural course of the game, which is the point I was trying to make. So, yes, then - I am, personally, willing to say "I have to die instead of win this combat, even though it is going to make me, the player, hate this game. I'm going to be personally miserable and stop having fun at all, but it would be unrealistic for my character to survive after the damage he just took and the saves he just rolled!", and, what is more, in the past, I have been through just such experiences.

 

Exactly... but in all the above' date=' you the player have made a decision about what you think is cool.[/quote']

 

Since it isn't allowed to override the options that are made available through what would be "accurate" (and this, again, taking place before and outside of such consideration as what would have been "cool"), those decisions aren't as influential as you seem to think.

 

Even when you are in what you feel is full "sim" mode' date=' I doubt very much you 100% simulate every aspect of your character's life.[/quote']

 

That's because our personal schedules can't afford an even time ratio. We can't afford to spend 100% of our time playing, and we sometimes spend longer than the original event took just to play through it; combats are a good example of this.

 

On a more serious note' date=' I'm sure there have been moments when the GM says, "Ok... then we move on to the next morning," which is a situation where you decided not to simulate every aspect, but made a metagame decision about what was "cool" and worth playing out.[/quote']

 

Just because we don't explicitly articulate it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. When we abbreviate time in such a way, we don't say that the night itself really passed in the duration of a few seconds, or that our characters ceased to exist for that time, or even that they did nothing; we simply incorporate the updates. It's the same principle as allows us to spend a few hours on a HERO combat that lasts for only a few seconds, only in reverse.

 

It's not the character making you do something... you are doing what you want through the character.

 

If the character would have only one legitimate option, then we have no choice; we can refuse to continue playing, or we can allow their own nature to trap us into doing the only thing they would do. But we cannot simply make something up, based on what we want, if such an option is not already available, not if we want to maintain our accuracy.

[incrdbil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

The realism came from comparison with "reality"; it happens in the real world, so it would be realistic in a game world too.

 

there is no way to gauge mechanically what makes one person act differently from another in a certain pressure situation; generally, the person who can 'realistically' say to an 'accurate' degree (I really hate using these terms about an RPG decision) in the best way is the player. The influence of others can be considered, but shouldn't be over-riding and, touching back on the original post, to me doing so mechanically is the least desireable of all situations.

 

Even in a game of historical simulation, if we're talking aboutr characters primarily made up by a person, they are the preferred, and most legitimate, arbiter of those actions. If you take a character, model if after a real life person (or make that character a representation of a real life person), then you've got more room to argue about accurate portrayals..but thats a vanishingly small subset of gaming, very much an exception to what, is percieved by me to be the standard.

[incrdbil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If the character would have only one legitimate option, then we have no choice; we can refuse to continue playing, or we can allow their own nature to trap us into doing the only thing they would do. But we cannot simply make something up, based on what we want, if such an option is not already available, not if we want to maintain our accuracy.

 

The critical point being who determines what is the legitimate option.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

there is no way to gauge mechanically what makes one person act differently from another in a certain pressure situation; generally' date=' the person who can 'realistically' say to an 'accurate' degree (I really hate using these terms about an RPG decision) in the best way is the player.[/quote']

 

We (including "the player") can, though, observe from our own lives what really does happen in reality, and use that to replicate such patterns in the character. This is one of the ways in which RDU Neil and I are working from the same root premises, and our agreement on it is what forms the basis for productive discussion (whereas, in many cases, extensive discussion only narrows down the points of disagreement to fundamental principles that noone can compromise on). We both see that what the player recreates inside themselves, for a character, must be internalized, and that the patterns must be grasped by the player; but we apply that principle in different ways, coming to different conclusions. I believe, for example, that it is possible to isolate the character's personality within one's own mind, erecting a barrier or mental "shield" that prevents it from tainting one's own soul; and that we can understand the patterns abstractly without fully integrating their meaning, much as a scribe might copy over scribbles of a language they did not know, working with painstaking exactitude. We can, in short, describe human behavior mathematically. From there it is just a small step to expressing such equations in a mechanic

 

[Whoa, did I just hop back on topic for this forum? A long and winding road it was, too.]

 

If you take a character' date=' model if after a real life person (or make that character a representation of a real life person), then you've got more room to argue about accurate portrayals..but thats a vanishingly small subset of gaming, very much an exception to what, is percieved by me to be the standard.[/quote']

 

I don't think there's very much difference (though there is some) between a character that is a representation of a real-life person, and a character that is a just-as-detailed representation of a made-up oerson. For the real-life person, there is a chance of checking in with the truest form to confirm the accuracy of a simulation. For the made-up person, it depends on who made it up. Since the GM usually knows best the setting within which the character was developed (treating "development" in the same way, here, as we would say that a baby "developed" into a child and then "developed" into an adult, not in the traditional sense of "character development" as used to refer to fleshing out a character's background), they have some authority to correct the player's idea of what the character is:

 

"No, Bob, you may not play a Jedi Knight in my alternate-history Civil War campaign. There simply wouldn't have been anyone who grew up like that, in this setting."

 

For convention games where characters are "imported" from their home campaign worlds, or well-established settings like The Forgotten Realms, it's appropriate to say that the GM couldn't know more about the character than the player (which is not to say that they do, since they still might have studied all the books and the player know nothing). But for "homebrew" campaign worlds, where the setting is the GM's own creation and the players have no idea, they must accept the GM's veto on things. It is perfectly within a GM's right to say "Good luck with that character, but it doesn't exist in this world.", or "Your character can't fly, because your wings were made for Earth, and the gravity here on New Venus is too intense." There are certain laws of physics and other low-level rules by which the characters must abide.

[incrdbil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

We can, in short, describe human behavior mathematically. From there it is just a small step to expressing such equations in a mechanic

 

Let's just say I completey, and strongly disagree with that statement technically, and even in its philosophic implications and a RPG. Further commentary is not likely to follow, just because I've seen this road before.

 

For the made-up person, it depends on who made it up. Since the GM usually knows best the setting within which the character was developed (treating "development" in the same way, here, as we would say that a baby "developed" into a child and then "developed" into an adult, not in the traditional sense of "character development" as used to refer to fleshing out a character's background), they have some authority to correct the player's idea of what the character is:

 

The player is often quite knowledgeable about the setting (after all--a good GM communicates to hsi player what the setting is). But, regardless of the setting, the GM is not going to be more knowledgeable of the player characters 'accurate' or realistic actions than the player. I've met those who thought so, and, in every case, it turned into just a bad scenario of railroading. Call me prejudiced by experience.

 

But for "homebrew" campaign worlds, where the setting is the GM's own creation and the players have no idea, they must accept the GM's veto on things.

 

No, they must not. it is their character, and, given sufficient reason, they should not accept a GM's interpretation if they have just the slightest belief that their character would behave in a certain way. GM's who force player actions over the players objections (barring totallyty unreasonable players) tend to run out of players eventually, in my experience. That is not a fault of players, in my opinion.

 

It is perfectly within a GM's right to say "Good luck with that character, but it doesn't exist in this world.",

 

Pre game veto of a character, thats understandable. In game..well, thats simply unacceptable.

 

 

or "Your character can't fly, because your wings were made for Earth, and the gravity here on New Venus is too intense." There are certain laws of physics and other low-level rules by which the characters must abide

Yes--but that has nothign to do with what I was talking about--pure internal decisions of character actions.

 

Well, it has been an interesting discussion. Good luck with your Dying Earth game.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It's hard to believe that a thread entitled "Heat of the Moment" would get so heated....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

 

 

 

No no no. Never just to make for a dramatic scene. I would agree that if Batman's 'player' for example, had him kill a common thug, yeah, that would be ridiculously bad roleplaying and the GM should not let that happen.

 

But if at the end of many stories, the Joker having pushed him to the edge and beyond, it is conceivable that the Batman would be able to make the decision to kill the Joker, as the Joker has done to most everyone that Bruce cared about.

 

Now that makes for great drama. Bruce overcomes his psych lim momentarily to push the story foreward,

 

That sounds very much like doing it to make a dramatic scene.

 

Now, to be sure, many players hate losing control over their characters even briefly. That's why even so much as losing a fight and getting captured can cause great disgruntlement. But you know, there are moments in people's lives when they act not out of a decision making process like "The Joker keeps getting out and killing people so it's about time I settled his hash once and for all", but just out of a moment of incoherent fear or rage. That's why I suggested the presence attack mechanic. It usually won't work unless there are some hefty modifiers (He just joked about killing Robin), and it'll only last for a phase even if it works, and after that, the character's once again fully under the player's control. I think that would be tolerable to most players. The ones who can't live with wouldn't tolerate the usual intimidate Presence attack either.

 

However, I personally would hesitate before encouraging players to have their characters try to murder their opponents. Far too many are inclined to take the bit in their teeth and run with such a suggestion.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

That sounds very much like doing it to make a dramatic scene.

 

I guess I should have clarified "Never just to make for a dramatic scene" - there must be story reasons, a character arc... justification for the action. Don't throw your psych lims out arbitrarily 'just to make for a dramatic scene.'

 

Sorry, I thought that bit of it was self explanatory in the context of the post.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

or "Your character can't fly, because your wings were made for Earth, and the gravity here on New Venus is too intense." There are certain laws of physics and other low-level rules by which the characters must abide

Yes--but that has nothign to do with what I was talking about--pure internal decisions of character actions.

 

Where the low-level rules affect your character's thoughts and feelings, it is relevant. For example, I came up with this mechanic to reward roleplayers without punishing those who didn't:

 

If you do not define your character's personality and way of thinking, you are "Joe Normal"; you are not, as a player, required to figure out how your character's mind operates, but if you don't declare it to be otherwise, your character has no thoughts or feelings different from the generic masses.

 

This also neatly takes care of any "pre-game" versus "in-game" veto issues. The players must establish any uniqueness their character has before play begins; this is the chance for me, as GM, to have a long back-and-forth session with them to discuss what the campaign world is like and help them come up with a character that they will enjoy playing, who (and this is the priority, the condition of highest and first importance) will fit into the campaign setting.

 

Well' date=' it has been an interesting discussion. Good luck with your Dying Earth game.[/quote']

 

I'm hoping to convert it to the HERO system, though as I said, the one player who is fanatic about playing this with me (and has been privy to every single mechanic I've come up with over the last 5+ years) also hates the HERO system, with a passion

 

The system in The Dying Earth is one that meshes perfectly with the philosophical attitude of its inhabitants; if the HERO system can't match that, what good is it?

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

The system in The Dying Earth is one that meshes perfectly with the philosophical attitude of its inhabitants; if the HERO system can't match that, what good is it?

 

It can.

 

The debate here in a number of ways comes down to "system culture" I think. HERO, being a detailed, point based system, attracts many players and GMs who dislike randomness in chargen. That is one of the reasons I love it - and part of the reason that for that is simply this - I create the character I want to play (given the strictures of the campaign world). I make the physical abilities, I create the personality with background and disads. It is my character, under my control.

I think that is not uncommon with people that like HERO.

So when you are loooking for a mechanic (and a playstyle) that takes that little bit of control away from the player, it seems to go against the system.

 

For me, this is what it comes down to. I have no control of the world - that is the GMs perogitive. I have no direct control over the physical interaction of my character with said world - I roll dice to hit, and damage, some powers don't work in some situations (like the wings in the atmosphere thing mentioned).

 

But I do control how my character reacts to things, his opinions, personality, emotional reactions - those are mine. That is my connection to, and reason for playing said character. When mechanics start taking those decisions away from me, then that is a problem - and yes HERO has mechanics that do that, mostly in the Mind control department - and you can have a PRE attack affect you - but they are almost all "attack/defence" and have a combat influence on the character, not an influence on how the character thinks or emotes. IE it is a character making those influences that you react to, not unlike getting shot, and you react to - it isn't some ambient situaiton.

 

Removing that last bit of character control runs contrary to that way of playing. And while the system can handle it, the style of the system seems, to me, to attract the kind of players who don't like to play in that style.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I guess I should have clarified "Never just to make for a dramatic scene" - there must be story reasons, a character arc... justification for the action. Don't throw your psych lims out arbitrarily 'just to make for a dramatic scene.'

 

Sorry, I thought that bit of it was self explanatory in the context of the post.

 

 

Ah... that makes sense and something I totally agree with. Doing it just because its KEWL! without caring about the implications and repercussions of the act... no way. Doing it because it is dramatically appropriate and drives a thematic and/or plot based turning point in both the story and the Story... that is the best possible moment in role playing.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

For me' date=' this is what it comes down to. I have no control of the world - that is the GMs perogitive.[/quote']

 

Here's a question, then - if you were GM'ing, and the HERO setting called for a mechanic that would take some of that control away and give it to the players, how similar would your reaction be to what it is right now?

 

I have at least two such mechanics in place, possibly three (I'll have to think about the social aspect, and possibly check my notes, to be sure), to do exactly this. The desires of the PC's can directly influence their physical surroundings (a sort of Zen reality-manipulation power that only works when they aren't thinking about it; this prevents abuse), and [censored to avoid campaign spoilers].

 

Nothing in my notes for a social mechanic along those lines. Sorry about the censored part; I've put a great deal of work into setting up a system whereby the PC's can develop in any direction, with unique powers and disadvantages for each, and I want to keep their motivations pure and their knowledge innocent when it comes to choosing which way to go.

 

But I do control how my character reacts to things' date=' his opinions, personality, emotional reactions - those are mine. That is my connection to, and reason for playing said character.[/quote']

 

Not just control, then - you know your character.

 

I'm trying to increase the level of realism to reflect how we really don't know ourselves, because that will be a major factor in the campaign (besides, self-discovery isn't very acceptable when you already possessed certainty that you knew everything about yourself).

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Here's a question' date=' then - if you were GM'ing, and the HERO setting called for a mechanic that would take some of [i']that[/i] control away and give it to the players, how similar would your reaction be to what it is right now?

Just the opposite. I have houseruled drama editing for players for years. For me as a GM, I give the players as much control of thier character as I can, even down to letting that kind of thing influence the outcome of combat. When I gm it is all about player impowerment.

One of the things I am proud to say that in GMing two near decade long campaigns (one supers, one high fantasy) I never had a character die when I GM.

 

Not just control, then - you know your character.

Yep. For my style of play, that is the point, to know the character inside and out.

I'm trying to increase the level of realism to reflect how we really don't know ourselves, because that will be a major factor in the campaign (besides, self-discovery isn't very acceptable when you already possessed certainty that you knew everything about yourself).

OK. I can see that. not my style of course, but I can understand that.

 

For an understanding of my playstyle. When I play, I'll spend weeks, as I develop my character, before I even really get them finalized on paper, running through lots of hypothecial situations and how that character would react - that way when I run into the situation, in game, I already know which way to jump that is perfectly in keeping with the character's personality.

 

At one point, I had an interesting story arc for my PC (Champions)- I had the idea of my character getting killed, coming back, being possessed by her powers, which made her evil, getting depowered, going to prison, getting pardoned and coming back as a strait martial aritist (instead of a MA/Energy projector). The GM loved the idea, and we ran it. I knew beforehand the basic outline of what was going to happen, as deep exploration of character. It was one of the best plot/subplots I've ever played. It ran in the background for over a year. Yet the exact same situation, with all the same pieces in place, without my preconsent or desire for said plot would have been the worst thing I can imagine, and would likely have stopped playing the character as a result.

 

And on the concept of realism.... that is another difference in style. I have enough uncertainty, confusion and lack of control in real life. I game to avoid all that, and have fun being kick butt and hopefully being involved in good stories. And having lots of fun with the mechanics. I have one character, an man sized Amoeba (Meeb), where half or more of the fun of the character is coming up with really odball uses of his powers (stretching, Shapeshfit and others) during play, that I can then buy for him with experience. Total "metagaming" but it is as much fun as anything else I have done in gaming.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Emphasis mine:

Ah... that makes sense and something I totally agree with. Doing it just because its KEWL! without caring about the implications and repercussions of the act... no way. Doing it because it is dramatically appropriate and drives a thematic and/or plot based turning point in both the story and the Story... that is the best possible moment in role playing.

 

Now THAT is what I'm talking about!

 

[sorry I've given out too much rep in the last 24hrs!]

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Ah... that makes sense and something I totally agree with. Doing it just because its KEWL! without caring about the implications and repercussions of the act... no way. Doing it because it is dramatically appropriate and drives a thematic and/or plot based turning point in both the story and the Story... that is the best possible moment in role playing.

 

 

Right On!

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

[sorry I've given out too much rep in the last 24hrs!]

 

I got him.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

When I play' date=' I'll spend weeks, as I develop my character, before I even really get them finalized on paper, running through lots of hypothecial situations and how that character would react - that way when I run into the situation, in game, I already know which way to jump that is perfectly in keeping with the character's personality.[/quote']

 

I tend to make characters with as much background detail and personality as I can figure out in the time it takes to work out their character sheet and insert them into the setting (working with the GM), and then do that sort of thing in my spare time.

 

This sort of "ongoing character development", with the details being worked out in play rather than all before we even start playing, is the basic concept between my PBeM-style GM'ing (even in a tabletop game).

 

You know how, when you're first telling your GM about the character idea, they point out that the PC can't have encountered this heroic team in that city at this date, because the heroic team in question wasn't even created back then, or was currently committed at another location? And how they'll say that your PC can't have met with an NPC involved in the gambling circuit through his visits to your brothel, because the NPC in question doesn't visit such places (just hint at it), but your PC can meet up with the group through this NPC instead? These aren't dealbreakers. They're little details that you don't think much of at the time, because your character concept is still "in development", and you're eager to play it. You're eager to figure out who your character is, and so the character is really in a constant state of flux, except that it's easy to miss these changes because they're not really important in the larger picture.

 

I just extend this stage of character development through the entire campaign. It never stops, really. Well, for me it doesn't. That's as a player; as Gamemaster, I have mechanics in place that will enable the characters to set certain Absolutes for themselves, that can never be violated, on a metaphysical level. It's just that they're available to the characters, not to the players, and therefore must be identified and implemented on an IC level.

 

I see every session as having this method, though; each exchange is open to input from both sides, the players learning more about the setting and me as GM learning more about their characters. But the more we all learn, the less interference is actually probable; I could tell my players everything about the setting from the very beginning, but this would spoil a lot of the surprises, and I want to run a "journey of discovery", where we begin playing right away and learn more about the world as we travel through it. So, at first, there are bound to be corrections, and then, as time goes on, we become just like any other playing group.

 

It starts out differently, but makes for a very similar game

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

[sorry I've given out too much rep in the last 24hrs!]

 

Tell me about it. I've been keeping a list ever since #51, and it keeps telling me I can't do that. Spread it around some more? I would, if they'd bloody let me

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I just extend this stage of character development through the entire campaign. It never stops, really. Well, for me it doesn't. That's as a player; as Gamemaster, I have mechanics in place that will enable the characters to set certain Absolutes for themselves, that can never be violated, on a metaphysical level. It's just that they're available to the characters, not to the players, and therefore must be identified and implemented on an IC level.

 

 

If I understand you correctly, then I totally agree... up to the point of assigning those values to the character. Again, I just cut out the middle man and acknowedge that those are values that the player does not want violated. How we demonstrate such qualities is through playing the charcter and setting the stages and creating scenarios... but the values that drive our decisions are those of the players.

 

What I find interesting is that you, Robyn, and Lord Morham seem to be opposite ends of the spectrum... but the one thing you share is a deep obsession with the massively detailed character with hugely committed background detail, etc.

 

I differ greatly from you both on this. A character to me exists only as a sketch of an idea... a framework for some concept. Only in play do I discover the specifics. The character only "comes alive" when I give it voice and action in play.

 

The play's the thing...

 

Even as a GM, I feel this way. A gaming world may develop a lot of detail through years of gaming... but it starts as a sketchy framework with a theme. Fill in the details as we go. That way the entire process is discovery for everyone at the table... GM and players alike. Like Lord Morham I believe in player empowerment... but I push it beyond just their charcter. If they want a past history involving a cabal of sorcerors (and the over-all metagame environment supports that) then ok... let's insert a cabal of sorcerors into the world to fulfill that bit of past history. Then, if and only if that cabal is going to come up in actual play do I work with that concept to flesh out the details of that cabal. I don't care if there are 13 clans within this cabal and who their leaders are... unless that is important for the scenes/story/plot that will be played.

 

Things outside the immediate scene that have not been defined previously in play are a hazy mist that coalesces into a shared imaginary reality when the story demands it. The longer a campaign is played, the more and more of the imaginary world is defined by in play precedent.

 

When it comes to character it is the same. In some ways I actually agree with Robyn that we don't "know ourselves" so we can't have every eventuality planned like Lord Morham indicated. (If I'd thought through the entire life of my character I would have no desire to play 'em anymore. Everything is already known. Where is the discovery?)

 

OTOH, I have no desire for the GM or anyone else to dictate to me how to flesh out my character. It is the choices I make on the spur of the moment (with input from others of course) that define who the character is. Mechanics that would limit me from making such decisions would never fly with me. Input from other players (GM included) is more than welcome.

 

Example: Players/GM might say, "Hold on a second... up until now you've played Mighty Joe as a total fun loving guy who enjoys a good fight but never takes it too far. Suddenly he's all grim 'n gritty and trying to pull the head off of a bank robber! What's up?" That is completely legitimate and I had better have a good answer. Maybe that is when I say, "You are right... Mighty Joe is totally out of character and your PC is right to notice this. There is a maniacal look in Joe's eye you've never seen, before! What do you do?" or maybe, "Hey, you are right. I had a really sh!tty week at work... I'm just not in a good mood. I take that back, Joe just pokes the guy in the stomach and crumples his gun barrel while making a 'no-no' gesture."

 

That is the kind of in play, group dynamic that enforces "accuracy" as it exists within the game... not some mechanically enforced, GM edict.

 

As to your other comments, Robyn. I really can't respond. You keep using real life examples when what we are talking about is role playing. I don't see how the two interact. While yes, if the game is trying to have a historically accurate simulation of a Civil War battle, there are certain events/actions/behaviors that have evidential support that should be simulated. Simulated, not actually happen..

 

Example: It might be expected and appropriate for a player to role play their 17 year old Blue Coat who has never seen battle as cringing and sobbing in the trench while musket balls fly over his head. Such a game may demand such "accuracy", but I think the better way to put it is "verisimilitude." Do we, as the play group, accept the situation, events, characters and actions as plausible, convicing and compelling? If so, then it is "accurate" by all measure that matters.

 

There is no absolute truth, no perfect state of "accurate and right" to be attained. Just what the group consensus feels is plausible, convicing and compelling.

 

So while a situation as described above is the act of simulating a miserable, terryifying situtation/behavior in a charcter, the player should not be miserable or terrified, nor should the player be unhappy and not having fun because the scene sucks for him. The Civil War reenactment guy who is playing a wounded man on a battlefield is acting behaviors out, but doesn't have to be feeling such. They aren't lying there thinking, "My god, how could I have thought reenactment would be fun... and I find myself bleeding out in a muddy field... oh, how I miss my wife!" The behaviors he exhibits are "accurate" in your terms... but not because he actually lives their reality. Instead, if such a scene is played out, it is because the player and the play group are interested and think such a scene is "cool" because it drives the Story in a way which everyone enjoys.

 

A role playing game is not reality, nor does it create one. It creates a shared imaginary space that is truly a unique social dynamic that can be (and should be, IMO) consistent, internally plausible, convincing and compelling... but that isn't "real," and mechanically attempting to assert one person's "reality" on to a group simply doesn't work all that well. The only "reality" that exists is the one the group has decided is not only plausible... but interesting and fun. Verisimilitude is the key.