RDU Neil

I was thinking something like this. Since most movies are on home big screen HD tvs within 3-6 months now, if you had that when GWTW was released, how many people would have waited.

I wonder what the numbers would be for modern movies if the only time and place you could ever see them was during their run in a theater.

The Best Scene IMO had nothing to do with leads
 
" Gentlemen... it has been a privilege playing with you tonight "

I was referring very specifically to Spence's version of backstory... the player showing up with a preconceived tome they are emotionally attached to and expecting it to be accepted into play by the group. I prefer players to be arriving to the game, and even during play, in an open state of mind to who their character is and how they will play out. Sure, I have a Secret ID, but I didn't work out every detail about why or how... and if during play it turns out this doesn't really fit, or needs to change, or it takes on a different form, based on the way the story is unfolding... ok then, make that shift.

It might just be me, but I tend to approach things in a very sketched out, vague, general direction sort of way. Like, maybe I'm GhostGirl's player and I usually don't go for emotional drama, but during play I find that coming out, and being very natural as I discover who GhostGirl the character is right along with everyone else... and that kind of play is now important to me and I never would have stated that early on.

So many times we had players have a character built or written out a certain way, but into play, that isn't working the way they thought it was, or that aspect of the character is just not applicable to the story, or it turns out not be fun... so things get changed. Just as the GM should be open to what stories they are going to structure based on what their players express interest in, players should be open to being malleable to what comes out in actual play, rather than be married to a pre-conceived idea.

This is a great approach, which probably sees Con use rather than home game use simply because the nature of the Con is that you can't know the people who will be playing in advance.  It would be a great fix for the assumption we do know enough about everyone sitting around our own tables, though.
 
I suspect it sees little use in dark, ugly games because the players signed up knowing this was a game which could turn dark and ugly (where silly and whimsical actions would break the feel of the game).  Moving a Toon game into torture would merit a tap on the card, but who would sign up for a Toon game expecting to play out a torture scene?

Yes. That's my point. I should have opened communication with the other players before going on being all  "immersive."

aforementioned
 
You didn't actually read what I wrote.  I didn't say anything about no backstories at all.  I said:
 
It is during the CharGen session that the players sketch out their preliminary ideas and bounce them off the rest of the players and the GM.  They do not get to walk in with a 27 page manifesto already written and expect everyone else to build around it.   And then they usually have the gall to act wounded or cry that they are not being allowed to play what they want.  When the reality is they just want to be catered to. 
 
Preliminary character?  A super detective martial artist.  A master of the mystical arts? Is there magic in the campaign or not?  Is it a super criminal campaign or is it a mutants versus Genocide campaign.   All of these preliminary items needs out be sketched out before backstories are explored.
 
If the campaign doesn't have magic, you will not be able to have your Heroine be Hunted by Spymistress Tharlis since Skarn the Shaper wouldn't exist.  So showing up with that 27 page manifesto would be pointless. 
 
But it is Champions, so if the players want to include magic.  That is if they ALL do, then it is an easy thing to incorporate as long as the decision happens BEFORE the aforementioned 27 page manifesto       

re. Communication at the start of a campaign; at the formation of a new gaming group. Yes. Absolutely vital. I agree with you completely.
 
But even if this is done, done well, with the best of intentions by all parties, agreements are reached and understandings made; down the track situations will arise in which breaches of these trusts will occur. They just will.
 
I referred to an incident in my previous post in which I had contributed to de-railing a game session. Allow me to expand.
 
Situation: Playing with people I have known and gamed with for years. But I only get to game with them occasionally as I moved away for work some time back. On a visit back we were playing a game in which I was "guest-starring." The GM asked me to play a character who was indicative of the darker world behind the Silver Age 1970's comic book style that the other characters represented/inhabited. He suggested  a former Nazi rocket scientist. I was uncomfortable but what the hell, I like to be a team player and give the GM support. I went to great lengths to inform people what my character was AND that he was never an ideological Nazi. Like many people he joined the party because that's just what you did if you wanted to get ahead. He had some wrong headed bullshit ideas, but wasn't an actual genocide defending s#!tbag. I did my Communication 101.
 
In play I made an IN CHARACTER remark that was racist but that I felt was appropriate to the character. One of the other players was very hurt by it. And rightly so as it spoke directly to her personal experience. Obviously I was an idiot. What I should have done was stop first and check with her and the other players if where I was going was okay with them. I didn't and it wasn't. Much more hurt was done than losing out on a bit of (lame) drama.
 
So for all that I like a good immersive experience something I need to remember and put into practice is:  Communication is an ongoing process. It isn't done once and then everyone is dandy. Ya gotta keep working at it.
 
 
 

yeah... it is unfortunate that RPGs have turned "character development" into "leveling up."  I still think of it from a literary POV, where character development is the whole point... to experience the growth of the characters, changes in their values, mores, expectations and beliefs, through the fictional events. I've seen some RPG related quotes about "Character development is bullshit. Character growth is what is important."

Again... a shift in the meaning of terms based on context. A discussion of leveling up vs. growth could be fun, but actually a different thing altogether than what we've been talking about here. Either or both is possible in either style of gaming we've been talking about. Leveling up vs. growth is one of the "goal differences" Hugh was mentioning... not necessarily a style play.

This a thousand times this!  Have their been wonderful "in character" dramatic moments that might have been spoiled if someone broke character immersion? Of course. Those are wonderful when they happen, but they are rare, and they absolutely only happen when there is a level of trust between the players. Miscommunication happens WAY more often and derails WAY more games than "going meta" ever harms immersion. And on the plus side, meta discussions have driven way more "oh cool!" moments than ever happened organically in immersive play. 
 
Believe me, I'm old enough and old school enough to recognize a generation of role players coming of age with the deep, if unexamined desire to have this transformative experience through immersive play. It was kind of like the unspoken holy grail of gaming, often from a very simulationist POV (before that was ever a term.) Kind of a "the more real we treat this, the more immersed we are, the more transcendent the otherly experience will be" thing. 

If you've actually achieved that in game play... and I have a few times... it is really special. It is also rare, and CAN STILL HAPPEN when introducing meta-play alongside it... and most often, the attempts to create it by enforcing "immersion" were much more likely to cause game destruction than transcendent play. 

I've had the same, joyful, intense experience in very meta-play, where each player is in the groove and they are aware of how their characters are affecting the SIS and they are making great decisions and adding great elements to the mind space and the story just sings! 

Seriously. I mean... watching that 16Bit video I posted actually makes me sniffly. 

Just say, "On your left..." and I start to choke up.
 
I'm not just saying it... it happens, every time.

This a thousand times this!  Have their been wonderful "in character" dramatic moments that might have been spoiled if someone broke character immersion? Of course. Those are wonderful when they happen, but they are rare, and they absolutely only happen when there is a level of trust between the players. Miscommunication happens WAY more often and derails WAY more games than "going meta" ever harms immersion. And on the plus side, meta discussions have driven way more "oh cool!" moments than ever happened organically in immersive play. 
 
Believe me, I'm old enough and old school enough to recognize a generation of role players coming of age with the deep, if unexamined desire to have this transformative experience through immersive play. It was kind of like the unspoken holy grail of gaming, often from a very simulationist POV (before that was ever a term.) Kind of a "the more real we treat this, the more immersed we are, the more transcendent the otherly experience will be" thing. 

If you've actually achieved that in game play... and I have a few times... it is really special. It is also rare, and CAN STILL HAPPEN when introducing meta-play alongside it... and most often, the attempts to create it by enforcing "immersion" were much more likely to cause game destruction than transcendent play. 

I've had the same, joyful, intense experience in very meta-play, where each player is in the groove and they are aware of how their characters are affecting the SIS and they are making great decisions and adding great elements to the mind space and the story just sings! 

yeah... it is unfortunate that RPGs have turned "character development" into "leveling up."  I still think of it from a literary POV, where character development is the whole point... to experience the growth of the characters, changes in their values, mores, expectations and beliefs, through the fictional events. I've seen some RPG related quotes about "Character development is bullshit. Character growth is what is important."

Again... a shift in the meaning of terms based on context. A discussion of leveling up vs. growth could be fun, but actually a different thing altogether than what we've been talking about here. Either or both is possible in either style of gaming we've been talking about. Leveling up vs. growth is one of the "goal differences" Hugh was mentioning... not necessarily a style play.

I couldn't agree more.  And there are far more people that prefer to describe what their character does vice try to become the character bad accent and all.  In my current games I either run intros using pregens to teach a system or require all the PCs to be built during a character build session.  No backstories permitted until ALL THE PLAYERS have generated their preliminary characters.  Backstories are fine as long as they do not dramatically impact/change the rest of the players concepts or try to introduce elements that don't fit the campaign concept already agreed to. 
 
If the agreed upon campaign world does not have magic, then no, you cannot suddenly be a mage with Takofanes as the hunted.  Why? Everyone else as well as the GM will have built everything on the assumption of no magic and then here you come.
 
 
As for the terms "Role playing" and "character development".  My definitions are keyed to the game being a TTRPG not a theatrical exercise.  "Role Playing" for me is the entirety of at the table playing.  "Character Development" is the between game process of spending experience/leveling up ( depending on system ).
 
I know that people have an aversion to "simple", but adding ten thousand extra words to describe things isn't helpful. 
 
But whatever floats you boat 😜

Seriously. I mean... watching that 16Bit video I posted actually makes me sniffly. 

Just say, "On your left..." and I start to choke up.
 
I'm not just saying it... it happens, every time.

Funny... but seriously... I hate this stuff. Backstory is awful... it should be developed in play. Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with backstory... which is just a pre-play form of solipsistic "role play".

I agree with this... but what is interesting, is that immersion can just "happen" for moments when the group is in a groove. It is transitory... fleeting... but cool. I think the big issue was, in the past, most gaming tried to "force" this by "STAY IN CHARACTER!" or whatever... with the idea of sustaining those immersive moments. 

My take is that this is impossible, and what you want is a trusting environment where slipping into those moments is possible... and perhaps un-intuitively, that comes from LESS immersive play... MORE meta-play. A focus on player agency and communication can actually result in more "drama moments" than trying to force everyone to be immersed all the time. 
 
I do have plenty of experience where players may not forget who they are, but they mix their personal emotional state with their character's. i.e. SmartGuy's player really is all about the tactical stuff, and when the game isn't about that, he can get annoyed and that annoyance is not immediately conscious and comes across in snarky behavior by SmartGuy "in character" but if examined, is really being driven by the PLAYER'S dislike of "blah blah emoting... blah blah NPC shit" etc. Players tend to create characters that can explore the aspect of the game the players find compelling... and immersion can get ugly when the player's preferences are being emoted through the character and often not even consciously.

One of the things my group does not do is immersion.  We often use I rather than my character but it is almost never at a point where I think anyone is unaware that they are playing in a game with their friends.  I do think that questioning someone's character actions can be tricky, even when it is within the game rules - we can see that whenever we talk social conflict, where the game system might suggest that a character is convinced of a fact that the player is not...  🙂
 
Doc

I agree completely. And in fact I'd go one further - even when the trust is there miscommunication can still happen. It's always beneficial to stop now and then and let the other players know what it is that you're thinking. Can this de-rail a potentially good bit of drama? Yes. But so can not communicating. And not communicating has the potential to de-rail whole gaming sessions and friendships too. I've been a contributor to that in the past. And not even the distant past.
 
Communication is always good.

I liked that Endgame took the relatively bold step of turning the usual time travel trope on its head in order to have the Avengers travel through time with the express purpose of changing the past (slightly).  As for the nerdrage about plot holes--yes, time travel equals endless logical inconsistencies and moral dilemmas.  It's why time travel isn't my favorite type of SF and why I especially dislike it in sloppily written Trek.  But Feige & Co. did their best to set it up as almost plausible, the opposite of sloppy, and I'm not going to let it ruin Endgame for me.  Endgame, the superhero film that literally* made me weep with joy.
 
 
 
* Original meaning.

I'm surprised you don't see how problematic this is.
 
BlastMan Play the character:  "I storm off. You are all idiots! I'll take on Destructo myself!"  (huff grunt, slouch in chair looking pissed)   (Question on everyone's mind... is this acting or is BlastMan's player really pissed?)
 
Other player 1: "Uh... ok then... so what do we do?" 
 
GhostGirl Emotional Player 2: "I go running after BlastMan. I hate when people are upset!"
 
SmartGuy Tactical Player 3: "**** him! Jeezus... we've got an attack plan we have to prep. Now everything has fallen apart.  (Serious question... is  SmartGuy's player upset, or just SmartGuy? Are we role playing or is he really angry because he loves the tactical part, and BlastMan's player is messing with his fun?)
 
BeamerDude: "Hey, I agree with you, we need to plan. Let me go get GhostGirl and..."
 
SmartGuy: "Oh, you are leaving to? Christ, what a shitshow." (slump in chair grumbling)
 
GM: BlastMan... GhostGirl is following you, calling out your name.
 
BlastMan: "Back off!" I snarl and fly off into the night off the balcony!
 
GM: GhostGirl, do you want to do anything?
 
GhostGirl: "No, you can't leave!" I use my possession power to stop him!
 
BeamerDude: "Oh shit..."
 
GM (shaking head): Ok... post Segment 12...
 
--
 
I mean, seriously... and all the while, BlastMan's player is like "I never wanted any of this! I just wanted to storm off... be dramatic for a moment... he'd cool off after a while!... but because we can only "show" in character and aren't allowed to "go meta" and explain PLAYER motivation (remember... characters don't exist... things only happen because the PLAYER wants them to... the character can't want anything...) we are suddenly into playing out intra-PC combat BECAUSE NO ONE WAS ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES!
 
All could have been avoided if BlastMan's player was allowed to say, "I'm cool with you all doing your plan thing. I just want BlastMan to show how emotional the situation is for him."
 
or maybe...
 
GhostGirl's player could say, "This conflict is great, and I really want GhostGirl to have a chance to confront BlastMan in this emotionally charged situation... I feel a big character reveal could happen here."
 
or maybe...
 
SmartGuy's player could ask, "Hey... really? I was hoping to get to the attack plan. Are we really derailing this?" and letting folks know that the player is kinda unhappy about this.
 
 
It is FREAKIN' COMMUNICATION 101!!  Tell people what you are thinking, avoid assumptions and keep everyone on the same page and working together in the SHARED Imaginary Space! SIS is important for a reason. Everyone is involved... one player's head space is not isolated, and should actually be shared with the others... that's what it is all about.
 

Your "read a story" implies some big long monologue or something, which is not at all what I'm implying... but what I am saying is that everything that happens (nearly) should be all done up front with the rest of the players as audience. Something happens just to one player, off screen in their personal life, it still plays out in front of the entire group, so all the players enjoy the scene and understand that PCs story. Their characters might have no idea, but the players certainly do. Only occasionally, and usually to allow the player to really prepare a certain reveal or dramatic moment, would I be ok with GM and player going off to do their own thing. 
 
Same thing goes for whatever the players are introducing to the SIS. If a player is thinking, "Wow... BlastMan just wouldn't be ok with this, and he is terrible at expressing himself, so he's going to storm off in a rage," great... and the player can describe that... but intent is important. What does the player intend that scene to do? How will it move the drama/story/action forward? The player should explain that. "Ok... I'm storming off here because I really feel BlastMan is raging, unreliable and going to cause problems." Other players can ask questions, "Ok... so are we looking at playing out a group conflict here, or maybe you want BlastMan going rogue while the rest of the team tries their own approach?" Maybe the original player is like, "Oh yeah... I hadn't thought of that, but cool... yeah, can we do that? BlastMan will be trying to take out Destructo his way, while you guys are going in with an actual plan, and that will be a totally messed up situation. Fun!"   Or whatever. 
 
Wow... I take this VERY differently. Everybody sees every character sheet, and players will specifically do things like, "Oh... doesn't this trigger your enraged by Magic thing!" or point at their own sheet saying, "Oh yeah, this is totally a moment where I'm leaning into my "In love with the cheerleader" psych lim."   All whether or not the other characters know about it... it is about the players all having input to how things play out. It is one of the things I love about a lot of the PbtA games or Blades hacks... the PCs all have built in personality triggers and relationships and such on them... but not just in a generic way like Disads in Champs... but things that act as actual role playing compells and even like stats, where you get game effects by pulling the strings of your character. Like in a game of Cartel I just played, at the beginning every character had a relationship of some kind set with two other PCs. My PC 'had a debt' to another, which I determined because he patched her up, no questions asked, when she stumbled into his store with a bullet in her leg. Near the end of the game, my character came across his, who had been shot in the throat and was bleeding out. I was pursuing the Narco boss, but we as players both stopped at that moment, "Oh man... I owe you/you owe me!" as we both recognized this was a moment where that established relationship had to affect the game dramatically. My character totally stopped her initial pursuit, dropped everything to get this guy she really barely knew, to a hospital, and it changed the ending of the game significantly. Did that character or any of the others really know why she did that? It probably seemed like a random, out of character act to the PCs, but  the PLAYERS knew exactly why it happened and it had that very satisfying moment of "Oh yeah... this is cool drama..." that only comes from that audience/meta POV of grasping the dramatic cause and effect and thematic shifts that are happening. 

 
 
You act like no one ever has their own personality and ego wrapped up in the character they are playing? That even the best players get emotionally carried away by the pressure of the action or drama? There is a reason people say, "I do X" and "I say Y instead of "My character does X or says Y". It happens all the time, and in moments of conflict and heightened emotion, it is incredibly important that players take that moment to step out of character and reassure people, "Hey, I'm not really angry now, even though I just spent five minutes calling you all every name in the book!" I've had players who have known each other for decades nearly come to blows because a bad day or difference of opinion was affecting game play and character decisions that were really two players very angry at each other. I realized this because they were both getting really shitty to each other IN CHARACTER without breaking out to reassure "hey, this isn't real, this is role playing". 
 
In my experience, players get very emotionally invested in the success of their character, or that the story plays out in a way that they imagine... and when things go against them or the story takes a turn they aren't expecting or don't particularly like, it is much better that we are all comfortable "going meta" and discussing this instead of everyone "staying in character" and trying to show their frustration through the unexplained actions of their characters. I've been playing for 40 years now and that shit happens WAY too often.

There is ALWAYS doubt perceived at the table, IMO, when a character is going through a particularly difficult scenario or stress or complication... and unless the player steps out and smiles and says, "Oh I'm having fun here... really... my character is miserable, but not me... bring the emotional pain... this is cool..." I'll be very attuned to the fact that the PLAYER might be feeling the stress and expressing the emotions, not just the character.
 
 
Oh, this is part of the social contract for sure... and usually expressed right up front, but as you note, not all players are attuned to it. A mature response from a player might be, "I really do want to play the anti-social angry loner type, but I want to figure out how that character can be part of the story and add to the fun of the play group." Then the group can meta discuss "OK, how do we make the game work with one character always on the outs with everyone else?" And the group can come up with a way to shift perspectives between the group and the outsider or whatever.  Maybe scenes where the loner has information that he needs the others to act on, and he is like the terrible arrogant Batman type, where the other characters are like, "What a douche canoe... but he has good intel, so we'll keep working with him." But the players are all smiling and laughing because the scenes are enjoyable drama.

The likely issue here is similar to what I stated above, it wasn't just about the character... the PLAYER was emotionally invested in being the brooding, anti-social loner. The player enjoyed being a douche canoe "in character" and wasn't really concerned with how it affected the game or the others. 

In what way did I even imply reading a story? Never. But if your character is acting all moody and grumpy, cool... but the player better be quite open about "Hey... understand that my character is really angry and defensive, but that is not me, the player... I'm totally cool with how this is playing out." 

And to your initial experience... "My charaxter dismisses your character becuase he is a brooding moody secrative loner..." is a legitimate response. The rest is a misplay because the player is allowing the character to know things they wouldn't. But if your character has been anti-social and unwilling to cooperate... even if we the players know why... it is actually quite acceptable for the characters to react negatively to this. That is the drama that plays out. What is important about the meta-conversation is making sure the PLAYERS are ok with is. If you are ok with your character being ostracized and dismissed because that is a likely outcome of their anti-social behavior... cool. Good drama can come out of a character being written out for a while because he's an asshole and the player is like, "Yeah... he is an asshole and kicking him out seems right." Later, a plot might arise where that character comes back, when it is dramatically interesting to force characters to work together AND THE PLAYERS ARE ALL COOL WITH THIS DRAMA BEING EXPLORED. 
 
What is not acceptable is the moody PC player expecting everyone to accept this and somehow allow that behavior and keep him around even though it is sucking the fun right out of everyone else's play. If BlastMan storms out of the conference room, breaking the doorframe with his casual strength, angry because the rest of the team won't just go into Destructo's HQ guns blazing... ok... that's a legit reaction. What comes next is important... if the PLAYER just sits there, says nothing, just "He storms out," without offering any meta-explanation, that's unfair to the rest of the group who aren't sure if the PLAYER is all upset, or if just BlastMan is? How is the rest of the table supposed to react? 

Now, if the player says, "Going meta for a moment, yeah, BlastMan is acting a bit unhinged. The idea that his mom might still be alive is clearly causing him to crack a bit, and I'm cool with however the team reacts. If BlastMan gets benched for the actual attack, ok, that can be some cool interpersonal drama there to explore."   Whatever... that isn't "reading a book" but it is incumbent on each player to let the other players know what they are thinking. Clarifying situations and avoiding misinterpretations. It is a group dynamic creating a shared imaginary space, so what is going into that space needs to be shared.
 
Now, if GhostGirl's player says, "Do we have any idea why he's half-cocked like this? Do we have any clue about this mother stuff, because if not, GhostGirl would probably read him the riot act?"  And BlastMan's player can say, "Oh no, she wouldn't know... that could be cool... let's play that out," and bam, you are back into the role-playing and having a good time as characters scream and yell at each other, but the players are having fun. 

Without a very short meta discussion instead the whole thing degenerates, as players fail to communicate because their characters fail to communicate. No way no how is that good for play.

Part of this is the tone... not telling you how to play your character, but asking "Would your character really leave me to bleed out?" because hey, maybe you'd forgotten about he "owe me" thing... or maybe you had, and yes, this is clearly your character reneging on a debt, and dramatically we should understand that.
 
If a player describes a character's actions and it seems odd, out of character, or out of place for the scene, messes with expectations... it is totally legitimate for others to say, "Hold on... that seems odd. I wouldn't have expected you to leave him their to die. Am I reading this situation correctly?"
 
Then you can respond:
a) I wouldn't stop I have to get the... oh wait, crap, I just remembered I owed you... damn, right... I need to rethink this...
 
or
 
b) Yes, you see a momentary flicker of doubt, but the I steel my gaze and walk away, vengeance more important that a debt owed!"
 
or
 
c) "Yep... it is odd. You are reading it right. Let's play this out."
 
 
Or whatever else might be the situation. Half the time players misconstrue the situation, or have imagined the scenario out of whack with the others... and the communication is short, simple and gets everyone back on the same page. Or just reassuring the table "Hey... yeah, we are on the same page... this is a character moment, it should be straining expectations."  And cool, everyone is back in the groove.
 
No player perfectly plays their character in every situation. GMs don't make the best choices every time. Plenty of times my players have said,"Wait... are you sure X would do Y? What about that time when...?" and I'm like, "Oh crap... yeah... forgot that in the moment... you are right... let's pull back a bit, instead what happens is..."
 
That kind of thing keeps play groups on the level and working together... and avoids misunderstandings and over-reactions, etc. It's not about one player telling another how to role play, it is about communicating expectations and intent clearly, creating understanding and trust. After a while, weird or out of character moments can give rise to nothing more than a raised eyebrow from one player and a "trust me" nod from the other... because communication is built up and trust has been EARNED not just expected.