Heat of the Moment

[Enforcer84]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Was it telling you what her heart meant?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am so disappointed yet, thrilled that this went five pages without the Asia song joke. Thanks for saving it for me.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

am so disappointed yet, thrilled that this went five pages without the Asia song joke. Thanks for saving it for me.

 

I saw the joke right away, but left it for you who started the "Name that Band hero!" thread or for Death Tribble for his work on the mix tape.

[Robyn]

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,

 

From your response, I think you do. Which makes it fun that you disagree; it's an honor to be conversing with someone who disagrees with me, with what I'm actually saying, instead of disagreeing with some idea that they have (existing only in their own minds) of what I must be saying.

 

then I totally agree... up to the point of assigning those values to the character. Again' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

If the player's highest value is "accurate portrayal of the character" (and, again, I reiterate that the "accuracy" can be measured without any input from "personal enjoyment"), they can report on what the character would do; this is the extent of "making a decision". These decisions take place regardless of what the player wants - that is to say, the player's sense of what would be fun may coincide with that decision, it might or it might not, but that factor simply does not have any power to create options that would not otherwise exist nor remove options that would. Roleplaying is not, as you seem to be insisting, restricted in an absolute and immutable way to "what the player enjoys", with anyone who thinks otherwise merely deluding themselves by creating a "middle man", and yourself one of those enlightened players that realizes the truth of all roleplaying.

 

I may be laying it on a little thick, but hopefully you get the idea: there are more ways to roleplay than the one you currently acknowledge. I will explain the origins of one of those alternate methods, below.

 

A character to me exists as a sketch of an idea... a framework for some concept... and only in play do I discover the specifics of how it will play out. The character only "comes alive" when I give it voice and action in play.

 

If I were inclined to satire, I could take your previous posts and reword them to explain how "roleplaying" is really just this way by which we can spiritually "tap into" the minds of those in another reality, and most of us are too egocentric to believe that the information we're coming up with came from anywhere but our own imaginations

 

The argument would be just as difficult to disprove as your own

 

Input from other players (GM included) who might say, "Hold on a second... up until now you've played Might 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... Might 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.

 

The mechanics, to make this clear, are only to reflect how we cannot really know our own characters; they keep things mixed up, reminding the players to be doubtful of what they really "know" about the PC's (the characters, of course, rationalize things to themselves and go on believing they have never acted in an odd manner). The group dynamic you describe is exactly as I would have it be.

 

As to your other comments' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

One of my old GM's converted, over the course of several years, several total munchkins to devout roleplayers. He did this by recognizing where they were coming from, and meeting them "halfway" (well, probably more like "all the way", at least to begin with). He gave them exactly what they wanted - to run around a campaign world like mad, slaughtering its denizens (and each other) and pillaging whatever they came across. Over time, he also introduced some roleplaying elements, eventually getting them interested in RP for its own sake, not just as some flavorful complications to an existing game.

 

You seem to be presuming a single shared point of origin for all players in a roleplaying game. If we all came at it from the direction of "This is all in our imagination.", then yes, everything else would be derived from that premise; but, we're not.

 

Some of us came at it from "This is real, we need to get as close to the original as we can.", and we segued from there into roleplaying, because of the similarities (and because profiling a psychopath is damned depressing; using those skills to have fun is the only thing that keeps it manageable).

 

Some of us came at it from "Let's take out our aggression and rage in a harmless way." And, no matter where we came at it from, the realization that there is no single origin gave us the freedom to use any of those approaches.

 

Do we' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The logical extension of such an argument is that there is no absolute truth in any sense; no history, no ethics, just what your community agrees upon.

 

I really, really hope that you will reformulate your philosophy in light of the "based on reality" roleplayers.

 

The behaviors he exhibits are "accurate" in your terms... but not because he actually Instead' date='[/quote']

 

Could you please fill in the missing words so I can respond to what you were trying to say? Thanks.

 

Edit: I just saw your Edit

 

The behaviors he exhibits are "accurate" in your terms... but not because he actually lives their reality.

 

I rate accuracy not just by the external behaviors, but the internal thoughts, feelings, etcetera.

 

mechanically attempting to assert one person's "reality" on to a group simply doesn't work all that well.

 

There is a difference between overwriting an imaginary "reality" with uncalled-for details, and excising inappropriate details from a bloated "reality" that never should have had them in the first place. The difference is in perspective; if we accept uncertainty, we accept that we might be wrong, and we don't fixate on the current imaginary reality as "everything here must remain that way".

 

The only "reality" that exists is the one the group has decided is not only plausible... but interesting and fun.

 

Okay, perhaps we have a difference of vocabulary here. In the past, you've defined "realistic" as "what is fun/enjoyable to the group", rejecting my attempts to distinguish them, but here you use "plausible" in contrast with "interesting and fun", as if "interesting and fun" go above and beyond this "plausibility".

 

I can't tell if you've been ignoring or simply missed all my exposition of how people can value accuracy without necessarily holding what they're doing to be either fun or enjoyable, but I don't think we can go any further unless you can be convinced to accept that simple fact. It happens in real life, and as I've been trying to show you, it can happen in roleplaying too.

 

[Yes, I am stating my beliefs with the strength of fact, because I "know" that real live people do start out with accurate emulation of scenarios/people but nothing else akin to roleplaying, and then segue into roleplaying. But then again, you, RDU Neil, also "know" that the character is nothing but a middle man and there is no way to measure "accuracy" save by what the groups finds fun/enjoyable; why should the statements I make now, based on what I "know", be any more questionable than the statements you have made, based upon the same "knowledge"?]

 

We can call the roleplaying you describe "The One And Only True Way", and all the rest of us just poseurs, but that's a derogatory term that would discourage all us poseurs from swelling the ranks of the "True Roleplaying" subculture. And swelling is exactly what we do; just as I could, upon seeing that there were other ways to roleplay, try out those styles as well, so too can these players learn to roleplay just as you do, RDU Neil - but they won't get there as you did, and you're liable to just scare them off if you don't welcome their differences for what they are.

 

[2nd edit: "as such" to "what they are".]

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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.

 

So here's a situation: The Amazing Arachnoman, a character noted for his thrill-seeking and wise cracking tendencies is suddenly transported into the battleship of the fearsome Deathseid. Deathseid is tremendously powerful, has a fearsome reputation, a face like a mile of bad road, and is going steady with Death. Arachnoman has never run into anyone like Deathseid before.

 

The player points out that he's being "in character" when without hesitation upon encountering Deathseid he starts making jokes about how Deathseid looks like he's gained weight since he defeated the Revengers and the big needs to work out more and maybe grow a moustache. That's his concept of Arachnoman and how he's been playing him versus people like the Crime King and the Jersey Devil. The GM's concept of Deathseid, however is that this is the absolute scariest being in his universe. Is the GM justified in using a Presence attack to change Arachnoman's attitude for at least a phase, using DS's 90 PRE versus Arachnoman's 25?

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If the player's highest value is "accurate portrayal of the character" (and, again, I reiterate that the "accuracy" can be measured without any input from "personal enjoyment"), they can report on what the character would do; this is the extent of "making a decision". These decisions take place regardless of what the player wants - that is to say, the player's sense of what would be fun may coincide with that decision, it might or it might not, but that factor simply does not have any power to create options that would not otherwise exist nor remove options that would.

 

 

I can see that point of view, about making the character true to character no matter the desire of the player involved, but I have a question. Why would someone do something that they don't consider fun for a leisure activity? What is the reward?

 

Gaming for me - the reward is fun. If it weren't fun, I wouldn't be doing it.

 

Understand I'm not trying to knock the position you explain, merely understand it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If the player's highest value is "accurate portrayal of the character" (and, again, I reiterate that the "accuracy" can be measured without any input from "personal enjoyment"), they can report on what the character would do; this is the extent of "making a decision". These decisions take place regardless of what the player wants - that is to say, the player's sense of what would be fun may coincide with that decision, it might or it might not, but that factor simply does not have any power to create options that would not otherwise exist nor remove options that would. Roleplaying is not, as you seem to be insisting, restricted in an absolute and immutable way to "what the player enjoys", with anyone who thinks otherwise merely deluding themselves by creating a "middle man", and yourself one of those enlightened players that realizes the truth of all roleplaying.

 

 

Does it help that I would equate fulfilling your "highest value" with "fun." That fulfillment is what I'm talking about... and perhaps my choice of words "fun" and "enjoyment" and "cool" detracted from that?

 

You seem to be saying "people can roleplay to fulfill a high value." If so, I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that your "accurate portrayal of a character" is how you define fun. It is how you find fulfillment. You... as a player. Therefore, if I'm gaming with you and want to have a functional play group, I have to be conscious that your desire for accuracy (using your own terms) is something I need to provide/support in order for you to enjoy the game. That is the bottom line, and it has nothing to do with an imagined reality of a character... it has to do with what you, Robyn, want in the game.

 

 

 

If I were inclined to satire, I could take your previous posts and reword them to explain how "roleplaying" is really just this way by which we can spiritually "tap into" the minds of those in another reality, and most of us are too egocentric to believe that the information we're coming up with came from anywhere but our own imaginations

 

I wonder if you don't truly believe this. To me, this is denigrating the human condition and consciously ignoring a shared metaphysical reality. You can play all the the post modern deconstructionist games you want, but that way lies pointlessness.

 

The mechanics, to make this clear, are only to reflect how we cannot really know our own characters; they keep things mixed up, reminding the players to be doubtful of what they really "know" about the PC's

 

Huh... I would read this as "the point of the game is not accurately portraying a character, but to keep the players guessing." Now, this could be quite fun if all players are on board that what they desire, what they find fun, is trying to figure out the GM puzzle of "Who am I?" If so, cool. If they aren't on board with that... then I have to admit I'd suspect your "accurately portray the character" mantra is a GM bullying technique to keep players in line with what you think is correct. I may be wrong, but that is my feeling.

 

 

One of my old GM's converted, over the course of several years, several total munchkins to devout roleplayers. He did this by recognizing where they were coming from, and meeting them "halfway" (well, probably more like "all the way", at least to begin with). He gave them exactly what they wanted - to run around a campaign world like mad, slaughtering its denizens (and each other) and pillaging whatever they came across. Over time, he also introduced some roleplaying elements, eventually getting them interested in RP for its own sake, not just as some flavorful complications to an existing game.

 

I don't see how the old "role playing vs. roll playing" argument is relevant here. I'm not making a judgment on your techniques/methods/desires that are fulfilled by role playing... I'm challenging whether your rationale about what is actually happening in the role playing experience is logical and supportable.

 

You seem to be presuming a single shared point of origin for all players in a roleplaying game. If we all came at it from the direction of "This is all in our imagination.", then yes, everything else would be derived from that premise; but, we're not.

 

Some of us came at it from "This is real, we need to get as close to the original as we can.",

 

I don't presume your your origin at all. My question to you is "What is the "this" you refer to... and what is this "original" you speak of?" What is it that you are trying to simulate by which you judge your accuracy?

 

and we segued from there into roleplaying, because of the similarities (and because profiling a psychopath is damned depressing; using those skills to have fun is the only thing that keeps it manageable).

 

I have no idea what this means, or why it is relevant... but it is disturbing.

 

Some of us came at it from "Let's take out our aggression and rage in a harmless way." And, no matter where we came at it from, the realization that there is no single origin gave us the freedom to use any of those approaches.

 

Again... it is not a matter of approach... it is a matter of "What is happening during the role playing experience?" I think you are arguing that you are somehow tapping into some extant "other" metaphysical reality and channeling that in your games. If that is the case, we have no common ground. While I think that is an interesting psychological method to use in gaming, I can't say that it makes it "real."

 

The logical extension of such an argument is that there is no absolute truth in any sense; no history, no ethics, just what your community agrees upon.

 

There are facts... but facts change. Their truth changes as the world around us changes. There exists history and ethics, but our perceptions and values and communal agreement on these things change, and thus our reality changes. This is the curse of the conscious being. We live in an extant reality, but we can never know it completely... we are limited by our perceptions and ability to give meaning and value to things. There is a reality we all share that just "is" but it is in constant flux, and we will never know or understand it fully or even share a perfectly compatible, if imperfect, interpretation of that world. Yes... the individual and community do define their reality in as much as they can come to consensus. This is not a bad thing... it is simply a fact of uncertainty. We can't ever know things perfectly, so we build our lives in the reality as best we can understand it.

 

What any of this has to do with role playing... I'm not sure.

 

I really, really hope that you will reformulate your philosophy in light of the "based on reality" roleplayers.

 

I don't think I have to. As above, my philosophy incorporates this. Your "based on reality" roleplayers have a certain play style/play experience they desire... so to make a game enjoyable, fun (read: fulfilling) for them, I have to accommodate them. I have to support enough verisimilitude that it "feels real" to the group and therefore they get what they want out of the game.

 

 

I rate accuracy not just by the external behaviors, but the internal thoughts, feelings, etcetera.

 

Whose internal thoughts, feelings, etcetera?

 

There is a difference between overwriting an imaginary "reality" with uncalled-for details, and excising inappropriate details from a bloated "reality" that never should have had them in the first place. The difference is in perspective; if we accept uncertainty, we accept that we might be wrong, and we don't fixate on the current imaginary reality as "everything here must remain that way".

 

Maybe I was unclear, but everything I've tried to say supports this. A player is called out for role playing in a way that breaks the verisimilitude of the game... so they say, "Ok... yup... take that back. I want to support the plausible, convincing and compelling story so I change my action." That is conscious metagaming in order to maintain verisimilitude.

 

If the character and imaginary game world were truly "real"... it would be impossible for the above to happen. The real character would never do anything that wasn't possible, however unlikely. You'd have to accept every action/event as "true" because it existed. You would have to accept whatever comes out in the game because it just "is" and you are just conduits for it. By admitting you do metagame, and do adjust decisions in order to make them "fit" you idea of accuracy... then you are admitting that the game world is imaginary and you change it to fit your desires. The decisions you make ARE the game world... ARE the character. The decisions and the player making them and that player's desires and values are what is real... the shared imaginary space created is just a creation to meet those desires. The same way an artist creates a painting to express and fulfill something... we role play. To be pretentious... our art just happens to be uniquely ephemeral.

 

Okay, perhaps we have a difference of vocabulary here. In the past, you've defined "realistic" as "what is fun/enjoyable to the group",

 

I think you misunderstood, or I mispoke (mistyped?). The group continues to come together to shape and share the imaginary space because they find it fun/enjoyable/fulfilling to do so. Each player's experience is unique to them... but they have enough common ground to interact. Realism has nothing to do with this. A play group of "Capes" can create a whimsical, ungrounded, strangely combative shared experience that has nothing to do with reality, but all are engaged. Another group can attempt Civil War reenactment. Both are true role playing, with very different perspectives on what is "fun"... but both are, bottomline, doing the same thing... "Creating a shared environment that is fun/involving/fulfilling/enjoyable." If they don't find that, they stop doing it.

 

rejecting my attempts to distinguish them, but here you use "plausible" in contrast with "interesting and fun", as if "interesting and fun" go above and beyond this "plausibility".

 

Again, I think we might be talking cross puposes here. I'm not talking about why we role play, or why we think we role play... but what is actually happening when role playing is satisfying. Plausible doesn't have to mean "realistic" it means it "makes sense for the imaginary world the play group has created." If your play groups desire is to be as accurate as possible to our "real world" ok... go for it. Every group has a level at which they want "reality" to be reflected in their games. Every individual player has certain tropes and expectations of what reflects reality, and where the imaginary world has it's own rules. These expectations can be the source of a great deal of disfunction in a group, because our reality has near infinite permutations, and no two people are going to agree on which aspect of reality is most important for verisimilitude. The functional play group comes to a consensus on what they will accept and not to have enough "real" in the game for verisimilitude.

 

 

I can't tell if you've been ignoring or simply missed all my exposition of how people can value accuracy without necessarily holding what they're doing to be either fun or enjoyable, but I don't think we can go any further unless you can be convinced to accept that simple fact.

 

Again, perhaps fun/enjoyable have improper connotations for this, but what I'm trying to say is that if "accuracy" as you define it is your desired state... then achieving accuracy is fulfilling/fun/enjoyable. Thus metagaming in order to fulfill your desire for accuracy is no different than metagaming in order to allow the cathartic violence guy to hack up kobolds willy-nilly. It is giving you what you want. It is meeting player desire.

 

It happens in real life, and as I've been trying to show you, it can happen in roleplaying too.

 

Exactly. The accountant may not think they are having fun during tax season, but they get enjoyment/fulfillment out of being accurate and excelling at completing the taxes... thus they had fun in the end. If they didn't, they wouldn't be an accountant for long. Applied to role playing, if you as the player don't get fulfilled by the act of role playing, you won't continue to do it. Even if you slog through many bitter hours of role playing, where you the player have to buckle down and say, "I'm not having fun right now," in order to create your desired "accuracy" of a world... you still get your enjoyment/fun/fulfillment at the end when you recognize the "reality" you've created. This I understand completely... but it has nothing to do with a real character or a real world. You have an idea of a character. That idea is as real as a thought can be... and fulfilling your idea of the character, even if it is a lot of hard, "unfun" work, is the ultimate enjoyment and fun. That doesn't make the character real. The experience, in the end, is that you the player fulfilled your desire, which is what I call fun.

 

 

We can call the roleplaying you describe "The One And Only True Way", and all the rest of us just poseurs, but that's a derogatory term that would discourage all us poseurs from swelling the ranks of the "True Roleplaying" subculture. And swelling is exactly what we do; just as I could, upon seeing that there were other ways to roleplay, try out those styles as well, so too can these players learn to roleplay just as you do, RDU Neil - but they won't get there as you did, and you're liable to just scare them off if you don't welcome their differences for what they are.

 

This is patronizing, but I'll be moderate in response. Recognizing players for what they are is exactly what I'm talking about. Recognizing that players want different thigns in order to find role playing fun/enjoyable/fulfilling. Recognizing that play works if the groups desires mesh... and play is disfuntional when those desires don't... exactly what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with method or way. My method and your method may not mesh... so you and I would probably not be fulfilled/have fun trying to game together. It is not a matter of right and wrong... it is a matter of recognizing that we choose to roleplay, no matter what brought us to it, because the end result we find fulfilling/positive/fun/enjoyable. There is no right or wrong method to role playing... but there is a common factor that is "you choose to role play so that you will be fulfilled (fun enjoyment) and if you aren't fulfilled, you won't role play." Therefore... good games... no matter the methodology, have the common characteristic of "giving the players what they want."

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Why would someone do something that they don't consider fun for a leisure activity? What is the reward?

 

Before trying to answer that, I need to check a few premises: what is a "leisure" activity? Why must there be some sort of "reward"? Is there always a reward, and payment for jobs is one of them, or is the money received from working merely the lack of "punishment"?

 

The nature of human motivation aside, there is also the question of just what constitutes a "leisure activity". Some people write poetry for their own pleasure. Others write it for a living. Some do both, writing for their own pleasure and/or for practice at their real jobs. When does something become a "leisure activity"? Is it exclusively defined by the presence and/or absence of the aforementioned "rewards" and/or "punishments"?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This is where I disagree. I'm inferring from this argument that you're ultimately lumping the two people - the character and the player - into the same thing. You're further asserting that we can mathematically determine how people will act. I watch "NUMB3RS" all the time, and sure enough, it's led me to believe that there are mappable patterns of behavior. I can buy into that without too much difficultly.

 

But those are patterns based on large numbers and massive amounts of evidence. Okay, says, the counter-argument, I have a character history and two years of this campaign under my belt. Draft me a mechanic that "determines" what I'm going to do next. Fine! That's likely doable (albeit a royal PIA). But that's not really the question I'm asking.

 

The question I'm asking is "Why in the twelve infernal hells would you want do take that freedom - the ability to make a NEW CHOICE - out of the hands of the player of the character?"

 

KAOS made a good point - the actor and the writer rarely agree. The writer has a vision of how things should go, and it's on the actor to create that vision in their own image. To portray that character on screen. That's their JOB. As a DM, my task is NOT - EVER - to determine the OUTCOME of events by directly manipulating player action. If they enough psych lims, sure, I'll force a roll if I have too, but I would never have the whole plot arc collapse, or worse, end the way "I want" because of a forced roll on a player side because they weren't acting in the way I saw fit.

 

That would make me a director. I'm not THEIR director; I can control the winds, and the sunshine, and the color of the grass & sky. I can create a Goblin Horde and I can create a crying child in its mother's arms. All these things I can do and do every time I sit in the Big Chair. I do not, under any circumstances, force people to feel a certain way about it. I can paint it sympathetically! I can relay the 'writer's version' of what they experience. I can put an innocent three-eyed frog in a sewer, but I can't stop a player from skewering it for no reason (which happened two games ago).

 

At the end of the day, this is really a matter of opinion. As a writer AND actor, I always side with myself. I know my vision of the character and I can act it out reasonably well and express that vision in mechanics and roleplay. Even those NPCs have a certain amount of mental freedom. Sure, you can reduce everything to numbers.

 

But why would you want to remove the human element that makes roleplaying what it is?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

So here's a situation: The Amazing Arachnoman, a character noted for his thrill-seeking and wise cracking tendencies is suddenly transported into the battleship of the fearsome Deathseid. Deathseid is tremendously powerful, has a fearsome reputation, a face like a mile of bad road, and is going steady with Death. Arachnoman has never run into anyone like Deathseid before.

 

The player points out that he's being "in character" when without hesitation upon encountering Deathseid he starts making jokes about how Deathseid looks like he's gained weight since he defeated the Revengers and the big needs to work out more and maybe grow a moustache. That's his concept of Arachnoman and how he's been playing him versus people like the Crime King and the Jersey Devil. The GM's concept of Deathseid, however is that this is the absolute scariest being in his universe. Is the GM justified in using a Presence attack to change Arachnoman's attitude for at least a phase, using DS's 90 PRE versus Arachnoman's 25?

 

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. This is one of those "reasonable situations" that incrdbl spoke of...

 

... however, I would question the reason WHY the GM thought it a good idea to "change the character's attitude." If it was to show that Deathseid is so powerful he can make you do things against your will just be standing in the room... ok. Presence attack away. The reason I like Presence is that when you use it, it is a mechanical attack on the PC, thus there is a mechanical chance of failure and or PC resistance, etc. It is no different than the GM having Deathseid blast the "Insignificant chattering insect!"

 

If the GM is doing it just because he wants the player to show some respect for his villain... not so much.

 

Also... the play group should have a say on this. If they think such a power is cool... ok. But the GM should watch the reaction of the player. Maybe they accept the situation, but grumble or slouch a bit... this is a sign that the player is not enjoying that game element. The GM should then use it sparingly. If the player's desire and fun come from mouthing the glib comments of his character... it is poor gamesmanship to deny that continuously to the player.

 

Take another example: I build a character who is a total gun-bunny. GM approves said character... then goes on to present adventure after adventure where my character is sans guns or using guns is a poor choice, or gun use is punished rather than rewarded... then this is poor playing on the GMs part. A player has a responsibility to complement the GM's game world, but the GM has a like responsibility to provide opportunities for the player to fulfill his desires about why the character is being played in the first place. If Gm approves a gun-bunny character, the GM is responsible for providing opportunities for the gun-bunny to do his thing.

 

Players' desires and the characters they build shape the shared imaginary world as much as they conform to it.

 

Edited to add: On the Presence attack piece... think of it this way. Is it appropriate for a villain to attack a character with a big attack and knock them out (the ultimate denying of player choice aside from killing 'em)? Of course. Is it appropriate for the GM to blast the character with a big attack any time the GM wants to "control" the character? I can't imagine anyone saying yes to that. Thus, taking Robyn's idea that there is a standing effect mechanic that is constantly being applied to every action the player tries to take via the character... that is akin to saying "Unless you do one of the prescribed actions, a blast from the blue knocks you out."

 

What is the point to that? If the player's are "into" a game where their actions are heavily proscribed... then they will comply readily because they find it fun. If they make a mistake, the group says, "Hey wait a sec..." and the player says, "Oh yeah, I meant..." and conforms. There is no need for a mechanic to take control away from the player. If there is a need for the player to constantly have control taken away, what is being said is that the player doesn't really want to conform, thus shouldn't be playing this game... and if the GM seems to think all his player's aren't conforming thus I need a mechanic to force it, that GM is deluding himself that his players are enjoying the game.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

This is where I disagree. I'm inferring from this argument that you're ultimately lumping the two people - the character and the player - into the same thing. You're further asserting that we can mathematically determine how people will act. I watch "NUMB3RS" all the time, and sure enough, it's led me to believe that there are mappable patterns of behavior. I can buy into that without too much difficultly.

 

But those are patterns based on large numbers and massive amounts of evidence. Okay, says, the counter-argument, I have a character history and two years of this campaign under my belt. Draft me a mechanic that "determines" what I'm going to do next. Fine! That's likely doable (albeit a royal PIA). But that's not really the question I'm asking.

 

The question I'm asking is "Why in the twelve infernal hells would you want do take that freedom - the ability to make a NEW CHOICE - out of the hands of the player of the character?"

 

KAOS made a good point - the actor and the writer rarely agree. The writer has a vision of how things should go, and it's on the actor to create that vision in their own image. To portray that character on screen. That's their JOB. As a DM, my task is NOT - EVER - to determine the OUTCOME of events by directly manipulating player action. If they enough psych lims, sure, I'll force a roll if I have too, but I would never have the whole plot arc collapse, or worse, end the way "I want" because of a forced roll on a player side because they weren't acting in the way I saw fit.

 

That would make me a director. I'm not THEIR director; I can control the winds, and the sunshine, and the color of the grass & sky. I can create a Goblin Horde and I can create a crying child in its mother's arms. All these things I can do and do every time I sit in the Big Chair. I do not, under any circumstances, force people to feel a certain way about it. I can paint it sympathetically! I can relay the 'writer's version' of what they experience. I can put an innocent three-eyed frog in a sewer, but I can't stop a player from skewering it for no reason (which happened two games ago).

 

At the end of the day, this is really a matter of opinion. As a writer AND actor, I always side with myself. I know my vision of the character and I can act it out reasonably well and express that vision in mechanics and roleplay. Even those NPCs have a certain amount of mental freedom. Sure, you can reduce everything to numbers.

 

But why would you want to remove the human element that makes roleplaying what it is?

 

Well put.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Thanks, Neil.

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. This is one of those "reasonable situations" that incrdbl spoke of...

 

... however, I would question the reason WHY the GM thought it a good idea to "change the character's attitude."

 

Take another example: I build a character who is a total gun-bunny. GM approves said character... then goes on to present adventure after adventure where my character is sans guns or using guns is a poor choice, or gun use is punished rather than rewarded... then this is poor playing on the GMs part. A player has a responsibility to complement the GM's game world, but the GM has a like responsibility to provide opportunities for the player to fulfill his desires about why the character is being played in the first place. If Gm approves a gun-bunny character, the GM is responsible for providing opportunities for the gun-bunny to do his thing.

 

Players' desires and the characters they build shape the shared imaginary world as much as they conform to it.

 

Oh yes, definitely a GM has the responsibility to make sure that Big Shot can use his guns and Arachnoman can mock almost all of his villains. I was just looking to clarify your position on that kind of thing.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Mehr. Seems to me that I'm strongly on the side of what Neil is saying in that post, David. If you're going to approve a bunch of fighter-types as PCs, then it is the GM responsibility to include combat for the gun-bunny types.

 

However, it is also the GMs responsibility to say things like "That doesn't fit this setting," and "You'll need more skills to succeed in this campaign" and "My vision for these characters in this story isn't combat-central. If you build a gun-bunny, expect long periods of boredom punctuated with moments of intense panic." And such like that. The fun doesn't magically appear because you built the character you want to play despite other players and GM caveat.

 

The fun comes only from full cooperation among all parties in an effort first to create a persistant world where those characters can 'do their thing' and in which the GM gets to strut his/her stuff in the story-telling/narration department.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Before trying to answer that' date=' I need to check a few premises: what is a "leisure" activity? Why must there be some sort of "reward"? Is there [b']always[/b] a reward, and payment for jobs is one of them, or is the money received from working merely the lack of "punishment"?

 

The nature of human motivation aside, there is also the question of just what constitutes a "leisure activity". Some people write poetry for their own pleasure. Others write it for a living. Some do both, writing for their own pleasure and/or for practice at their real jobs. When does something become a "leisure activity"? Is it exclusively defined by the presence and/or absence of the aforementioned "rewards" and/or "punishments"?

 

Wow.

 

If those are questions you are asking, then our assumptions about what and why to game are so far apart that I don't think I can see a way for meanful communication.

 

So I think I am just bowing out rather than keep talking past each other.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Well put.

Seconded.

 

I'm out of rep, or I'd rep ya, Thia.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

You can put it on your to-do list. It'll recycle soon enough.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

You can put it on your to-do list. It'll recycle soon enough.

Part of the reason I mentioned it in the post - to remind me.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Does it help that I would equate fulfilling your "highest value" with "fun." That fulfillment is what I'm talking about... and perhaps my choice of words "fun" and "enjoyment" and "cool" detracted from that?

 

That helps immensely, yes. In that same sense, we "enjoy" work, even at jobs we don't particularly like, because the exact actions we take at work, even if unpleasant, are nonetheless one of our "values" (within their full context, of giving us money which we can use to survive and obtain other things which we deem valuable).

 

It's starting to sound like a circular argument, though, with each statement simply pointing to the next in line for its proof. If people always, no exceptions, roleplaying for the fulfillment of their values; and you are willing to accept that "accuracy" can be a value; and you believe that what is "accurate" cannot be defined by anything except what is "fun"; and you equate "fun" with "fulfilling a value"; you essentially are designing a word puzzle where "accuracy" is robbed of all its meaning and there can be nothing but "fun" and "values". Where does it all begin? The approach taken by a player will determine that answer. Either "fun" came first, and it's fun all 'round; or "accuracy" came first, and accuracy created fun.

 

That is the bottom line' date=' and it has nothing to do with an imagined reality of a character... it has to do with what you, Robyn, want in the game.[/quote']

 

Well stated.

 

I wonder if you don't truly believe this.

 

No, I brought it up only to illustrate a point; that, when we put forth any belief that deals with dissent by saying "You just don't realize how it really works because your lack of enlightenment blinds you to the truths that refute your groundless theories.", it tends not to sound very impressive to the unenlightened

 

To me' date=' this is denigrating the human condition and consciously ignoring a shared metaphysical reality.[/quote']

 

What exactly does "metaphysical reality" mean, anyway? Metaphysics is the field of philosophy that addresses the nature of reality. It overlaps, and particularly strongly here, with epistemology; what do we know and how can we really know it?

 

We physically share three dimensions, but does this mean we also share a plane of thought and emotion? I contend that we do not. I hold that we have mental/emotional access to the shared physical plane, but that our minds do not directly reside there; we cannot transfer thoughts and feelings from the minds of others directly to our own, we can only reconstruct our best guesses at their thoughts and feelings within our own minds.

 

Huh... I would read this as "the point of the game is not accurately portraying a character' date=' but to keep the players guessing."[/quote']

 

The point (or single most important one, anyway) of any game (where we accept the uncertainty factor I described earlier), where it is to accurately portray the characters, requires that the players keep guessing. That they remain aware of the uncertainty factor. That the nature of the character remain a mystery to the player:

 

This is the curse of the conscious being. We live in an extant reality, but we can never know it completely... we are limited by our perceptions and ability to give meaning and value to things. There is a reality we all share that just "is" but it is in constant flux, and we will never know or understand it fully

 

All of which you built an excellent argument for

 

I don't see how the old "role playing vs. roll playing" argument is relevant here.

 

Pointing out the origins of some of the people who, later on, were roleplayers.

 

I don't presume your your origin at all.

 

Yet, your arguments fall to pieces the moment they face a player who came from "simulating real life" to "roleplaying".

 

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.

 

I don't think they "interact", either, but that doesn't seem like the vital part of your argument here; that is, I don't see how it would matter even if they did interact. (Intersect, yes.) What they do is overlap. The techniques used in both are extraordinarily similar, to the degree of being all but identical; I have pointed out several real-life examples where, epistemologically, they are indistinguishable from roleplaying. (I would have said, here, that they were like the methods used in roleplaying - but I accept what you said earlier about "joy" and "attaining a value" being equivalent.)

 

My question to you is "What is the "this" you refer to... and what is this "original" you speak of?" What is it that you are trying to simulate by which you judge your accuracy?

 

That depends entirely upon the situation. However, as I have pointed out, there is no difference in technique regardless of whether the "original" is/was real or not.

 

I have no idea what this means' date=' or why it is relevant... but it is disturbing. [/quote']

 

Another possible origin for those who started roleplaying. Didn't you ever watch the NBC show "The Profiler", about a woman who had a great gift at getting into the heads of the psychopaths?

 

Again... it is not a matter of approach... it is a matter of "What is happening during the role playing experience?"

 

But my argument is that "what happens during the roleplaying experience" is not as fixed as you seem to think; that it directly depends upon the approach, the origin, of the people who do it. See my paragraph about "circular arguments".

 

I think you are arguing that you are somehow tapping into some extant "other" metaphysical reality and channeling that in your games.

 

Please try to ignore the "spiritual" example, I raised that point only to show how silly such things are. Apparently you are already experiencing for yourself some of the difficulty in taking seriously the person who says such things

 

I have been arguing for the lack of such an "other" plane for the thoughts and feelings of others, both in reality and in gaming, to show that the techniques for figuring out what thoughts and feelings would be in either are fundamentally the same.

 

There exists history and ethics' date=' but our perceptions and values and communal agreement on these things change, and thus our reality changes.[/quote']

 

It almost sounds like you're saying there is such an "other" reality; our perceptions will not directly affect the physical reality we all share, nor will our perceptions directly affect other people's minds. This is because we are not "tapping into" them or "interacting on a shared plane", we are only playing with our own perception to create simulations of their minds. Their perceptions (and to some extent, of course, their physical brains) will determine the effect upon their own mind.

 

Now, retro-phrenology () aside, we can't directly affect their minds through the shared physical reality; we have to rely on presenting various inputs for them to perceive, and hoping our knowledge of them (through our simulation of how their mind works) is accurate enough that we will bring about the results we think we will.

 

What any of this has to do with role playing... I'm not sure.

 

I'm just sayin' . . .

 

There's got to be a difference between starting out with "what everyone agrees on" as the measure of plausibility, which pretty much becomes "anything goes", so long as you can talk others into going along with it; and "as it works in reality" to determine the standard of realism (kinda redundant, that, semantically), which provides an objective point of reference, instead of one that can change with the mood in your group.

 

I have to support enough verisimilitude that it "feels real" to the group and therefore they get what they want out of the game.

 

But do you do this by accepting that some of them might have different ideas of "accuracy" than you, or by insisting that they have the same ideas as you do and just don't realize it yet?

 

That's at the heart of the matter, here. Do you let them create a simulation of someone that isn't them, or do you insist that they're just exploring their own ideas, emotions, thoughts, and desires, with the simulation a way to externalize the concepts they're exploring without having to admit that these concepts came entirely from their own selves?

 

Whose internal thoughts' date=' feelings, etcetera?[/quote']

 

Of the Civil War reenactment guy you were describing in that paragraph. He could be lying there thinking to himself "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!", but it's then possible for him to still roleplay more "accurately", by not only acting (on the outside) but thinking (on the inside) as a soldier in the Civil War would, to the best of his knowledge, have been thinking.

 

Maybe I was unclear' date=' but everything I've tried to say supports this. A player is called out for role playing in a way that breaks the verisimilitude of the game... so they say, "Ok... yup... take that back. I want to support the plausible, convincing and compelling story so I change my action." That is conscious metagaming in order to maintain verisimilitude.[/quote']

 

In which case it isn't an attempt to assert one person's "reality" onto the group, it is a cooperation with - as you put it - "the consensus of the group". Having a mechanism in place which works the same for all players, and eliminates the risk of "subtle interference as payback" from other players (if it were just their input which were used to maintain the element of uncertainty by having the character sometimes be different than how the player had, up to that point, understood it), is a fair way of handling it, whether the GM rolls the dice or the players do.

 

If the character and imaginary game world were truly "real"... it would be impossible for the above to happen. The real character would never do anything that wasn't possible' date=' however unlikely. You'd have to accept every action/event as "true" because it existed. You would have to accept whatever comes out in the game because it just "is" and you are just conduits for it.[/quote']

 

That's the problem here, I think: you seem to be equating the metaphysical status of "real" with a direct conduit. I repeat that reality is real, and that other people are real - but that their realness does not enable us to accurately understand them, no matter how well we build our simulations.

 

And thank goodness for that. What's the point of dating if you already know everything about your boyfriend? There's no mystery in that relationship. There's no "exploring each other's lives".

 

By admitting you do metagame' date=' and do adjust decisions in order to make them "fit" you idea of accuracy... then you are admitting that the game world is imaginary and you change it to fit your desires. The decisions you make ARE the game world... ARE the character.[/quote']

 

If my idea of accuracy is to look at the "original source material", whether that be a real live person next to me or a personality described on paper, and adjust the simulation in my own mind to reflect this as closely as possible; then do my desires exist as one of Plato's "First Principles", directly causing the changes in the simulation, or do my perceptions of the original create my desires, thus controlling the changes?

 

This is patronizing' date=' but I'll be moderate in response.[/quote']

 

And it isn't patronizing to tell people that you know exactly what's going on in their own minds but that they just don't realize it?

 

Oy.

 

Where is radioKAOS when you need his sigline?

 

Recognizing players for what they are is exactly what I'm talking about. Recognizing that players want different thigns in order to find role playing fun/enjoyable/fulfilling. Recognizing that play works if the groups desires mesh... and play is disfuntional when those desires don't... exactly what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with method or way.

 

We're speaking about different recognitions, then. I'm speaking about "their differences" in the sense of what about them is unlike you, not just their desires. I'm speaking about recognizing that their minds work in a way that yours doesn't.

[Kristopher]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I've never been at all fond of using rolls to force interpersonal actions on PCs or major NPCs. Roleplay, darnit.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

*ponders a moment*

 

I think I have the answer to this. Part of it was in a They Might Be Giants song a while back, I think on ... what was that album? Has some kids and a skull on it. Regardless.

 

No one understands. No one knows my plan. Why the dancing' date=' shouting, why the shrieks of pain, the lovely music, why the smell of burning autumn leaves? In my prison cell I think these words, I was careless I can see that now. I must be silent, must contain my secret smile I want to tell you, you my mirror, you my iron bars. When I made a shadow on the window shade, they called the police and testified. But they're like the people chained up in a cave - in the allegory of the People in the Cave by the Greek guy.[/quote']

 

If we're going to sling Greek Philosophy around, then why don't we pull out the big guns? This is the Allegory of the Cave. I, the DM, will be your silhouette provider. You, the players, will be my loyal audience. NONE OF YOU know that the images on the wall are simply figments of my imagination, or in this instance, shared imagination (Campellian joint subconcious heroic architecture or Jungian collective subconcious, your choice).

 

If someone were to knock on the door and say "That'll be 19 bucks, two extra large pizzas, garbage, no anchovies," he would clearly exist outside of the allegory of the cave. He isn't part of the illusion so he becomes an intrusion, to be slain for bringing false truths.

 

Or rather paid, because he brings pizza, and then goes away again. You're asking questions so esoteric that I'm not even going to bother trying to answer them. What is "fun?" Is fun the fulfilllment of values? What is it like to be drunk? Have you asked a glass of water?

 

It's fun. If you are getting 'fun' from quantifying fun, good heavens, enjoy yourself. But the entire argument seems to hinge on a series of responses and esoteric ideas which, at the end of the day, aren't going to improve my ability to run a game, or tell a better story.

 

Which means the whole argument is not only not fun, but in no way forwards my values.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

This is where I disagree. I'm inferring from this argument that you're ultimately lumping the two people - the character and the player - into the same thing.

 

No, they're separate. It's like this:

 

:fiddles with ASCII art: I need a real drawing program.

 

Start with a real person, your Significant Other; now, ask yourself this: what do you know about them? Do you have an idea of how they would feel in a given situation? Are there any of those situations in which you would feel differently? If so, can you nonetheless empathize with your SO by imagining how your SO would feel in that situation?

 

Continue with an imaginary person, your character; then, ask yourself this: what do you know about them? Do you have an idea of how they would feel in a given situation? Are there any of those situations in which you would feel differently? If so, can you nonetheless empathize with your character by imagining how your character would feel in that situation?

 

Both of these (your SO and your character) can be considered "roleplaying" to the extent that you understand them, because the methods used to come by that understanding overlap as I described above. There are additional techniques for a real person, that cannot be used in roleplaying; and there are additional techniques for roleplaying, that cannot be used for understanding real people; but for this technique, there is no difference.

 

The "very little" difference comes from those extra techniques, because (as I said) there is a chance you will be able to "check in" with the real-life person to confirm the accuracy of your simulation. If they're dead now, or won't talk with you, you have to go off of less data, though; if they're an idol or pop star, perhaps you will be able to buy their videos and read their interviews in magazines. For major historical figures, you should be able to read biographies and/or their published works, etcetera. For everyone else in the real world, and for most characters (the largest exceptions being Batman, and the rest), you have much less to go off of.

 

You're further asserting that we can mathematically determine how people will act. I watch "NUMB3RS" all the time, and sure enough, it's led me to believe that there are mappable patterns of behavior. I can buy into that without too much difficultly.

 

But those are patterns based on large numbers and massive amounts of evidence. Okay, says, the counter-argument, I have a character history and two years of this campaign under my belt.

 

Patterns also indicate a certain statistical likelihood that people will do something despite what they would rather not do. This is why I like the idea of an EGO roll; characters with above-average willpower should be in the higher end of that statistical bell curve, for the population; the thing is that, ultimately, we have several intersecting axes of probability. There are their established patterns of character behavior, and their relevant attributes, and the wider statistics that someone of their willpower would, in such a situation, break from the established patterns. In other words, we have uncertainty. Rolling dice is a way of handling the outcome which maintains the larger element of uncertainty.

 

Draft me a mechanic that "determines" what I'm going to do next. Fine! That's likely doable (albeit a royal PIA). But that's not really the question I'm asking.

 

Good, because I've done it, and I don't want to pull out my notes

 

As a DM' date=' my task is NOT - EVER - to determine the OUTCOME of events by directly manipulating player action. If they enough psych lims, sure, I'll force a roll if I have too, but I would never have the whole plot arc collapse, or worse, end the way "I want" because of a forced roll on a player side because they weren't acting in the way I saw fit.[/quote']

 

I agree, the desire of the GM alone should not be the deciding factor. If the group as a whole agrees that there is uncertainty, and has agreed upon a mechanic by which to represent it, then the player can roll for their own character . . . in much the same way as most other mechanics are used.

 

I can create a Goblin Horde and I can create a crying child in its mother's arms. All these things I can do and do every time I sit in the Big Chair.

 

There must be an awful lot of Goblin Hordes running around in that world

 

I know my vision of the character and I can act it out reasonably well and express that vision in mechanics and roleplay.

 

All I'm doing is asking about a mechanic to add to that repertoire.

 

Sure' date=' you can reduce everything to numbers.[/quote']

 

To clarify, I'm not talking about reducing everything to numbers, just about retaining an occasional random element for the sake of uncertainty. Reducing everything to numbers would be, well, like taking away the dice and working with a pure point-build system.

 

But why would you want to remove the human element that makes roleplaying what it is?

 

That's precisely what I want to keep - I just happen to think that it's not human to always know exactly who we will be.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Take another example: I build a character who is a total gun-bunny. GM approves said character... then goes on to present adventure after adventure where my character is sans guns or using guns is a poor choice' date=' or gun use is punished rather than rewarded... then this is poor playing on the GMs part. A player has a responsibility to complement the GM's game world, but the GM has a like responsibility to provide opportunities for the player to fulfill his desires about why the character is being played in the first place. If Gm approves a gun-bunny character, the GM is responsible for providing opportunities for the gun-bunny to do his thing.[/quote']

 

Situations like this are why I've been planning to request "concept stories" from each player for their characters, of "fantasizing" scenarios they can envision which would be a shining moment for their character. I can then try to put at least one of those in each session (or adventure, if I end up running a PBeM-style campaign where sessions aren't easily definable).

 

Players' desires and the characters they build shape the shared imaginary world as much as they conform to it.

 

Thus' date=' taking Robyn's idea that there is a standing effect mechanic that is constantly being applied to every action the player tries to take via the character...[/quote']

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud . . . no, this is not what I was saying. I'm not repeating myself for something this absurd; see my post above, to Thia.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

That's precisely what I want to keep - I just happen to think that it's not human to always know exactly who we will be.

 

For my purposes, I can call this the crux of your argument. That you want to add a random element to a person's RP in order to determine if, at the dramatic bit, they may - or may not - blow the villain's brains out.

 

I get it. I just don't agree with it. There are too many dramatic examples of people relenting at the last minute. There are ALSO plenty of dramatic examples of people pulling the trigger. I can appreciate - in a sympathetic sort of way - what you're attempting to do. I can equally appreciate that you may have some experience in which you thought character A should do this, and character B should do that.

 

I think if the story were built properly (which is asking a lot some days) and the player was cognizant of who the character is, and can look at that character and ask himself, "Would I blow his brains out?" Then I have enough trust in that PLAYER to do what they feel is appropriate to the character. Again, the core of my counter is that I don't think, as a DM, or as a Player, that my giant finale, when I finally have Captain Evil Bad Dude at the exact RIGHT END of my .45, that an EGO roll should be made to determine whether or not I spray his gray-matter on the waxed floor of his base.

 

You're saying "make a decision and roll to see if you do it." I say this is fundamentally different from "Pick the lock", "shoot the gun" and "seduce the hot chick." I can see the counter-argument "This is another interaction with an NPC and thus could force a roll" but at the end of the day we're talking about an internal struggle. Do I kill him? Am I four color or am I black & white? Am I Batman or the Punisher?

 

By now, if we're at the finale, the player should be the only voice in that decision. Not the dice. I respect your opinion and what you're saying, and I get it. But I'll never agree with it.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I'm inclined to agree with Robyn.

 

Here's how this works as I see it: Suppose you have a written description of several of a person's actions; you have an account of several different situations that this person has been in, and what they said and did in those situations, and what the results were. You can look at those, and try to infer from them an idea of what goes on in that person's head. You can look at the actions they attempted, and how succesful they were, to gain some idea of what their skills are, and how well they assess their own skills. You can look at their words and actions and try to guage their motivations and attitudes.

 

Then, you can postulate a hypothetical situation, and, based on your understanding of this person, estimate what their most probably course of action will be.

 

If I understand Robyn correctly, he's pointing out that it doesn't matter whether this person is real or fictional. The techniques used to analyze the actions to assess the personality are the same. The process of estimating a response to a new situation is the same. The possibility of incorrectly guessing is the same.

 

Again, if my understanding is correct, Robyn points out that we do this for the people we actually meet, too; we just observe their actions first-hand instead of in written reports. We form models in our head of what we think is happening in their heads, and from these models we try to predict their behavior. We can do the same thing for a fictional character.

 

One thing that seems to be a sticking point here is the "reality level" or "existence" of fictional characters. Fictional characters by definition don't exist. However, that doesn't mean that they don't have some level of independent existence.

 

How does Sherlock Holmes feel about love? What does he want to do when he retires?

 

These questions can be answered. They have definite correct and incorrect answers. Someone writing a Sherlock Holmes story would have to take these, and other established aspects of Holmes into account. It's possible for a writer to describe a character acting according to values that the character posesses but the author does not. I hate bees. I'm afaid of them. But, if I'm writing a story about Holmes and someone asks him what he plans to do when he retires, he says he wants to keep bees. And when he retires, he keeps bees. Why? Because that's what Holmes would do.

 

I've formed a model in my head of Holmes' mind, just as I've formed models of the minds of real people that I've read about, and the process of deciding "what would _______ do here?" is exactly the same. If I'm writing a story about an original character, I have the luxury of not just inferring but deciding how that character's mind works. I'm then responsible for ensuring that the character's actions match what I've decided for his or her mind. In a story, if I want the character to perform some dramatically appropriate action, I have to stop and think whether the character's mind would produce that action. If it wouldn't, as a responsible author, I have three options: I can retroactively decide that the character's mind is in some way different than I originally thought it was, I can add a previously unexplored dimension to the character's mind, or I can sigh and realize that the character wouldn't do that and come up with something else.

 

I can do the same thing for a character in a roleplaying game, except that I don't have the luxury of changing the character's past or previously established traits. I can still add new aspects to a character: "Ed jumps up on a chair to get away from the dachshund--he's terrified of dogs, it just never came up before."

 

And I can decide that the character won't do something: "Dude, last week you said that Ed owns dogs."

". . ."

"Okay, Ed doesn't jump on the chair, although I still think that would be funny. He, um, pets the dachshund and gives it half of his muffin."

 

I can play a character that is afraid of dogs even if I'm not. I can play a character that loves heights even if I'm afraid of them. In fact, someone else can play a character that I've created, and it's possible to judge whether that person is playing them "correctly" or not, because that character is a separate person from myself.

 

If a character was nothing but a means for the player to express himself or herself, it would either be impossible to play a character that someone else created, or at least impossible to meaningfully say whether that character were being played accurately or not.

 

Well, I've ranted a lot, and I feel like I've only managed to rehash points that other people have made more clearly, but I hope that some of this is useful in understanding this viewpoint.

 

At any rate, I've weighed in with my opinion.

 

Zeropoint

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Wow.

 

If those are questions you are asking, then our assumptions about what and why to game are so far apart that I don't think I can see a way for meanful communication.

 

I'm being careful to not make any assumptions here. This is why the questions have to be asked.

 

Ironically, the reason I find it necessary to ask such questions is based on the intrinsic value of creative projects, and our deepseated need to have our creativity free of external controls. What is this source that so strongly emphasizes freedom from controlled behavior and the "fun by itself" value of our creative efforts?

 

Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator