PDA

View Full Version : Defining Role-playing Games



Thinker
2018-01-31, 09:32 AM
How would you define an RPG to other people that is simple, straightforward, and gets the point across that cannot also be applied to other activities or is self-evident?

We could start with saying that it is about storytelling. Unfortunately, storytelling also describes biographers, historians, journalists, sports writers, and novelists. Any series of events can be turned into a story. We even make up drama and get invested in the characters, regardless of the source of the events. What if we put it into the context of a game? Well, we could theoretically come up with the story of how I beat everyone at Monopoly or was crushed at Risk or how we all saved the world in Pandemic. We can't really say, "well in an RPG, it's all make-believe". That would apply to all of those games as well. We can't really invoke fictional world since that should be self evident and besides, no one ever mistook Candy Land for a real place. We can't say "well you take on the role of a single character" since in every other game you are only responsible for a single token or side.

So, what are we doing differently from all of those other games? I'd say that an RPG is a game where players utilize narrative, character, and environmental elements to overcome complex challenges that are constructed or controlled by a referee. That's kind of a mouthful, not easy to remember, nor easy to say. We could just say, "RPGs are games where players overcome in-depth challenges that are managed by a referee." I think that is accurate and gets the point across. It doesn't really make me want to play one, but I suppose you could add in another line like "and this one is about slaying dragons" or "in this one we hunt monsters".

What do people think of the definition? What is your own simple, straightforward, and gets-the point across definition?

Earthwalker
2018-01-31, 11:02 AM
One thing a recent thread has learned me is this.

If you are going to state your definition for a role playing game maybe start the phrase with. For Me...

So

For me roleplaying games are about collaborative story telling. (Not what I think just an example)
It might stop arguments about who is playing the game right or wrong.

I recently had the chance to GM for some people playing their first ever game, I just felt I needed to stress, this is how I run things but its not the only way.

ITs difficult to make a short phrase to talk about the depth that is RPGs. Still if that phrase works for you, go for it.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-31, 11:18 AM
I don't think there's any simple term or one-sentence description that can sum up "what is an RPG" and get the point across to any reader / listener.

* RPGs have similarity or overlap with other activities (writing fiction, improvisational acting, group storytelling, etc etc) but they aren't any of those things, and none of those things are perfect parallels to RPGs.

* Gamers engage in the hobby for different reasons, use different approaches to playing, and get different things out of doing it.

* Different systems have different rules and different presumptions about how the game will be played.


I think the key elements of what makes an RPG an RPG and not something else are:

* There's a shared imaginary space typically consisting of a secondary world / "fictional" setting, although that world can be pretty much the real world for some games. There will be characters (people) in that world. There is typically a player who is responsible in large part for managing all the "non-player" stuff in that world, from the weather to the random people in the streets.

* The primary point of player interaction with that world is a character, although some games encourage multiple characters and/or provide player-level / "author stance" mechanisms as well. Games that heavily disconnect the player from their character tend to be at the fringe or outside of "RPG", getting into "storytelling games" instead for example.

* There are rules of some sort that handle resolving attempted tasks or conflicts, often focusing on those with uncertain or unknown outcome. The depth, complexity, and quality of these rules can vary greatly.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-31, 11:35 AM
I would explain it something like - "It's an open-ended board game where everyone works together."

It doesn't really match all RPGs, but it tends to match most of my favourite ones.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-31, 11:41 AM
I would explain it something like - "It's an open-ended board game where everyone works together."

It doesn't really match all RPGs, but it tends to match most of my favourite ones.

Probably includes a bigger chunk if "the board can be imaginary and huge" is somehow worked in.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-31, 11:43 AM
Probably includes a bigger chunk if "the board can be imaginary and huge" is somehow worked in.

Maybe - but I thought "open-ended" sort of covered that. And I didn't want the explanation to be too long.

kyoryu
2018-01-31, 11:52 AM
"An RPG is a game where players take on the part of characters in an imaginary world. One player is a referee, often called a Game Master or Dungeon Master. The referee tells the players what the situation is, and the players tell the referee how their character acts in response. The referee will then tell the players the results of their actions and how the situation has changed, and so on and so forth.

Dice are almost always used to help determine the results of actions, but sometimes cards are, and in rare cases there's randomization.

RPGs are wide and varied. The things I've just said are usually true, but some aspect might be untrue for particular RPGs. RPGs are also played for wide and varied reasons - for some, it's about the thrill of going into a dangerous situation and seeing if your wits and skill are enough to get you out of it. For others, it's the chance to live in an imaginary world. For some people, it's about getting into a deep story that they're a part of. For most people, it's some combination of these things."

Thrudd
2018-01-31, 12:01 PM
A game where players adopt the role of one or more characters in a fictional world/setting, in which the outcome of their actions and events are determined by game rules. A great majority of these include a special role for a player who designs the setting and acts as adjudicator of rules and facilitator for the other players, rather than adopting a character role.

Quertus
2018-01-31, 12:37 PM
Not all RPGs have a referee.

Jay R
2018-01-31, 12:43 PM
I can't even come up with a simple phrase in common English for "dog" that clearly and unambiguously includes Pekinese and Great Danes but not wolves, and that includes feral dogs but not tame coyotes. [Linnaean taxonomy is not common English.]

Similarly, it's very difficult to describe a role-playing game. Some rpgs don't have DMs. Some don't have dice. I've played one that didn't have rules. Some people are focused on a competitive game, others on story-telling. So what is the essence of a role-playing game?

My shot at it is, "A role-playing game is a game in which you make choices for a single fictional character acting in a fictional world."

Florian
2018-01-31, 12:44 PM
I don´t really think it can be drilled down to a simple one sentence solutions, even when we use a TLA for it.

- You play a game, so you follows rules how to play it. These rules mostly govern how you play a character.
- You (mostly) play it with one character, your game piece, fictional personality and window to the world.
- You play together with other people and you use language to describe what you do and what happens in the game, as well as what the result of the rules are.

kyoryu
2018-01-31, 12:46 PM
Not all RPGs have a referee.


"The things I've just said are usually true, but some aspect might be untrue for particular RPGs."

Got you covered.


A game where players adopt the role of one or more characters in a fictional world/setting, in which the outcome of their actions and events are determined by game rules. A great majority of these include a special role for a player who designs the setting and acts as adjudicator of rules and facilitator for the other players, rather than adopting a character role.

Yup. Pretty close to mine.

Quertus
2018-01-31, 12:55 PM
I think I would use the weasel words "usually", personally.

So, usually, an RPG is a game where you view a fictional world through the lens of a single imaginary character. You make decisions for that character, from the PoV of that character. Usually, the game has a single referee, who often creates the world, runs the world, and adjudicates the rules.

Usually, there are multiple players, each running their own characters, usually working together to accomplish one or more tasks.

This is likely still much more of a mouthful than the OP would prefer. But, as the man said, "Everything should be as simple as it can be - and no simpler." :smallwink:

kyoryu
2018-01-31, 01:00 PM
I think I would use the weasel words "usually", personally.

So, usually, an RPG is a game where you view a fictional world through the lens of a single imaginary character. You make decisions for that character, from the PoV of that character. Usually, the game has a single referee, who often creates the world, runs the world, and adjudicates the rules.

Usually, there are multiple players, each running their own characters, usually working together to accomplish one or more tasks.

But this is likely still much more of a mouthful than the OP would prefer. But, as the man said, "Everything should be as simple as it can be - and no simpler." :smallwink:

I think "usually" is necessary. RPGs are wide and varied, and there is almost no statement about them that is universally true. Arguably "you control one or more characters" is, because if you're not playing a role, are you really roleplaying? That would exclude stuff like Microscope, but I'm not sure that's an unacceptable exclusion.

Apart from that, I can't really think of a single constant across all RPGs. Most games use some kind of referee, to an extent I think it's worth bringing up - but not all do. Most use dice - but not all. The wideness of the hobby is an asset, but it makes it difficult to pin down a strict definition without something basically saying "an RPG will have most, but not necessarily all, of these qualities".

Quertus
2018-01-31, 01:19 PM
Arguably "you control one or more characters" is, because if you're not playing a role, are you really roleplaying? That would exclude stuff like Microscope, but I'm not sure that's an unacceptable exclusion.

I agree with you here, personally. Playing a role is the heart and soul of an RPG, IMO. If we can exclude Pluto as a planet, we can exclude Microscope as an RPG. But, then again, we include the Platypus as a mammal...

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-31, 01:25 PM
I've linked to this in other discussions, but I do think it's relevant here as well.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games

Florian
2018-01-31, 01:28 PM
I think "usually" is necessary. RPGs are wide and varied, and there is almost no statement about them that is universally true. Arguably "you control one or more characters" is, because if you're not playing a role, are you really roleplaying? That would exclude stuff like Microscope, but I'm not sure that's an unacceptable exclusion.

Stuff like Microscope, Durance or creating a Covenant for Ars Magicka are part of the setup phase/rules and not part of the role-playing. You prep the game by creating the game world, once that is finished, you role-play in it. This can be understood as replacing using a "setting" (like Forgotten Realms). You might have to alternate between handling the rules and playing the game, but that should not really affect RPG.

RazorChain
2018-01-31, 01:36 PM
I would say: It's like a CRPG where you make a character and play that character. Instead of being restricted in your choices, you can try to do whatever you want. Usually you have more than one player who play characters and cooperate and one player who has the role of a Game master who narrates and adjudicates.

Seto
2018-01-31, 01:59 PM
Giving a thorough, accurate and unambiguous definition of a TtRPG is a very different thing from summing it up in one or two sentences to get the point across.
When I have to do the latter, I say something like. "People sit together and create a story where everyone plays a character, (roleplaying) following certain rules (game), one of them generally does not have any one character, but offers obstacles to overcome, situations that they can react to." Sometimes I use the background of the person, e.g. if I know they like improv theater ("same, but with rules and fighting") or video games ("same, but Mario can decide to ally with Bowser instead of fighting him"). It's incomplete, but gets the point across. Then if the person seems interested or asks for clarification, I go into more details.

Tanarii
2018-01-31, 02:20 PM
My definition/explanation for RPGs in general:

Role-playing games are about playing a game of imaginary character(s) in an imaginary environment(s), and making decisions about what they do, and what happens as a result.

Specific games have specific "what are they abouts", as do specific tables using specific games. It will not always match my general definition, nor will my general definition always be more relevant that the specific definition.

kyoryu
2018-01-31, 02:43 PM
Stuff like Microscope, Durance or creating a Covenant for Ars Magicka are part of the setup phase/rules and not part of the role-playing. You prep the game by creating the game world, once that is finished, you role-play in it. This can be understood as replacing using a "setting" (like Forgotten Realms). You might have to alternate between handling the rules and playing the game, but that should not really affect RPG.

I'm familiar with the concept. Microscope can certainly be a *tool* for the setup of an RPG, and I'm generally on the "don't unnecessarily exclude people" side of things. (I personally tend to use A Spark in Fate Core for collaborative setting creation, but I digress...)

But I think that there's a case that Microscope, *by itself* can be reasonably excluded as an RPG, even if I probably wouldn't do it myself. And as such, I'm not super concerned if a general definition doesn't include it.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-31, 03:14 PM
I'm familiar with the concept. Microscope can certainly be a *tool* for the setup of an RPG, and I'm generally on the "don't unnecessarily exclude people" side of things. (I personally tend to use A Spark in Fate Core for collaborative setting creation, but I digress...)

But I think that there's a case that Microscope, *by itself* can be reasonably excluded as an RPG, even if I probably wouldn't do it myself. And as such, I'm not super concerned if a general definition doesn't include it.

From what I've read of it, it sits out there on the edge. It's a game that involves (snippets of?) roleplaying, but I'm not sure it's an RPG.

(And I'm also not sure it's not an RPG.)

Aliquid
2018-01-31, 03:35 PM
When I was a kid, the "choose your own adventure" books were all the rage. So when talking to people of my generation, I would typically say:

"remember those 'choose your own adventure' books? Well imagine a game similar to that... where your options on what to do next are only limited by your imagination. You decide what the character does, and the rules (which typically include rolling dice) will determine the outcome."

Pleh
2018-01-31, 07:17 PM
I like descriptive rather than prescriptive definitions.

Role Playing Games mostly require an element of Role Play, that is to say that the defining aspect of the game is carried by exploration of character. RPGs describe games that devise challenges and tools for victory defined by the scope of the characters brought into play, as opposed to being based on pre defined elements of play (such as pawns or tokens in more traditional boardgames)

Tanarii
2018-01-31, 07:36 PM
Role Playing Games mostly require an element of Role Play, that is to say that the defining aspect of the game is carried by exploration of character.I'm going to stick with the definition of the element of Role Play as saying: the defining aspect of the game is carried by making decisions for what your character does.

That can be informed by exploration of character. But it is hardly a required component of Role Play. Making decisions for what the character does almost always is.

Edit: I say that as someone who strongly believes in, and enjoys, "exploration of character" informing the decisions my character makes.

Arbane
2018-02-01, 12:16 AM
Best description of RPGs I've heard, allowing for the fact that there are edge-case games it might not fit: "RPGs are like a combination of strategy boardgame and improv radio drama."

Pleh
2018-02-01, 05:49 AM
I'm going to stick with the definition of the element of Role Play as saying: the defining aspect of the game is carried by making decisions for what your character does.

That can be informed by exploration of character. But it is hardly a required component of Role Play. Making decisions for what the character does almost always is.

Edit: I say that as someone who strongly believes in, and enjoys, "exploration of character" informing the decisions my character makes.

I don't really see a substantiative difference between your definition and mine.

To suggest that RPG is about, "making decisions for your character" but not necessarily "exploration of character" seems to say, "yeah, but you could just break character and it'd be fine." I would suggest you could move chess pieces any way you like, but only certain ways are legal if playing under conventional rules. Nothing wrong with changing the rules, but then are you really still playing chess, or would it be better to call it something else?

Then there's the whole chicken and egg thing about what is or isn't in-character. If you don't define what the character is like, is it possible to break from a undefined character? Or is the character rather defined by the decisions you make for them, their foil as a character only visible through hindsight?

I still say this is exploration of character, in either instance. Whether you map out the character in advance to constrain yourself to a narrative or just respond to stimuli as they present themselves, there is always that key element of choosing what seems best and most logical for the character (given whatever constraints or advantages are at play).

I would say that when the character should be responding to something or concerned about it and the player neglects or ignores that element, they have undermined the essential element of RPG. It may still be a kind of game, but probably not an RPG.

Lorsa
2018-02-01, 06:13 AM
I usually describe RPGs as something like:

"It is like reading a book, except you get to be the main character and decide their actions in the world, whereas the rest of the world is played by the GM".

That's the simplest way I've found, but from now on I might use kyoryu's explanation instead.

Tanarii
2018-02-01, 10:48 AM
I don't really see a substantiative difference between your definition and mine.
That appears to be because you're assuming that a character must be something other than an avatar of the player.

It is entirely possible to play almost any RPG with a character that is an avatar of yourself. You make decisions for the character based on what you would do. In that case, there is no additional character to explore, only decisions to make.

Edit: however, if you want to consider playing an RPG that way as exploring yourself, more power too you. I'm not going to tell you that's wrong. :smallwink:

Pleh
2018-02-01, 12:10 PM
That appears to be because you're assuming that a character must be something other than an avatar of the player.

It is entirely possible to play almost any RPG with a character that is an avatar of yourself. You make decisions for the character based on what you would do. In that case, there is no additional character to explore, only decisions to make.

Edit: however, if you want to consider playing an RPG that way as exploring yourself, more power too you. I'm not going to tell you that's wrong. :smallwink:

Well, honestly if it isn't in some way exploring yourself, then you aren't really making decisions based on what YOU would do, rather what this alternative version of yourself would do (since you would not likely be capable of doing the things that the game expects from the heroes). Hence you've still fabricated this characterization and simply modeled it after yourself to whatever extent the universe in which the character is residing allows.

Put more simply, you would not be you if you were born into this other world (unless you are roleplaying an exact recreation of your day to day life, in which case... more power to you). If you aren't taking the time to put that element of translating yourself into your character (which is to say, just plugging your own brain into the body belonging to the world it is in), then you really are just meta-gaming, which isn't truly in the spirit of what can be called "role playing." At that point, it's almost more a subversion of the intent to play a role.

The important distinction between "playing yourself in a story" and "metagaming" is whether or not you set aside your out of game (or particularly Out of Character) knowledge and limit your decisions only to knowledge your character would reasonably have.

Sure, you can make a character based on yourself, but if you're roleplaying, it will still be a character that is in some ways actually different than yourself. The act of interpreting the decisions of a character and attempting to emulate that character's response is Roleplaying.

Rhedyn
2018-02-01, 12:26 PM
"a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee."

-actual Google definition

Tanarii
2018-02-01, 12:38 PM
The important distinction between "playing yourself in a story" and "metagaming" is whether or not you set aside your out of game (or particularly Out of Character) knowledge and limit your decisions only to knowledge your character would reasonably have.No, it isn't. That's the myth of metagaming and player / character separation. If it's a problem then it's because the GM and player are making it a problem, either intentionally or unintentionally.

To be clear: player/character knowledge separation is not a necessary part of role-playing. It can be, but it is another thing not required.

kyoryu
2018-02-01, 01:09 PM
Well, honestly if it isn't in some way exploring yourself, then you aren't really making decisions based on what YOU would do, rather what this alternative version of yourself would do (since you would not likely be capable of doing the things that the game expects from the heroes). Hence you've still fabricated this characterization and simply modeled it after yourself to whatever extent the universe in which the character is residing allows.

Even if you're playing yourself warped into this other reality, very quickly that character becomes Not You, because the character will have experiences that you yourself did not, and as such will not react to things the same will that "Real You" would.

Pleh
2018-02-01, 01:21 PM
No, it isn't. That's the myth of metagaming and player / character separation. If it's a problem then it's because the GM and player are making it a problem, either intentionally or unintentionally.

To be clear: player/character knowledge separation is not a necessary part of role-playing. It can be, but it is another thing not required.

You make claims without evidence and they may be dismissed without evidence. You say it is a myth, and I say that it isn't.

Even still, I'll put my position out there perhaps more clearly. Maybe we'll come to a better mutual understanding by it.

If your character in the game is allowed to act with your knowledge, then your character is aware of our world, the fact that they are in a game, and all the experience you have with the game in which they interact.

If this is not the case, then you are practicing player/character knowledge separation and you are quibbling about where we draw the line. This is factually true because YOU are aware of our world, the fact that you are playing a game, and all your experience with the game in which you are playing. Your character either shares this knowledge or else you have separated that knowledge AT SOME POINT.

If this is the case, it rather much implies that this connection between the player and the game is a natural aspect of the fictional world (sort of like the Neverending Story where the characters become aware of the reader). This has far-reaching effects on the game setting which are not typical for most RPGs and should not be considered a standard element of RPG gameplay.

Most Characters do not possess Metagame knowledge. This is trivial to prove. Suppose you are playing a Wizard. Just because you have a book that lists all the spells in the game doesn't mean your Wizard has all of them in their spellbook. Just because you've seen that spell and correctly identified it in a different game doesn't mean this other Wizard character doesn't need to roll Spellcraft to identify it (since THIS Wizard is seeing it for the first time). Just because you have roleplayed combat against a Troll before doesn't mean this new character has any reason to know anything special about the Troll or even recognize that such is its proper name.

The existence of Metagaming is trivial to prove.

Considering games that hold to absolutely no player/character separation of knowledge (Neverending RPG) as a standard sort of RPG experience is a bit like including Nonconventional Chess games as part of the definition of Chess. It may be true from Obi Wan's point of view, but it's also tremendously misleading.


Even if you're playing yourself warped into this other reality, very quickly that character becomes Not You, because the character will have experiences that you yourself did not, and as such will not react to things the same will that "Real You" would.

Yes, another problem of trying to metagame yourself into the scenario. It just breaks down your character's relation to the setting unless the setting is specifically structured to suggest that ALL characters in the game have some connection to a real world player.

Tanarii
2018-02-01, 03:52 PM
You're forcing the knowledge separation. All you have to do to play an avatar is do stuff. Based on what you want to do. There is only separation of knowledge if you want it to be there, and that is only a problem if you want it to be there and yet still have a problem with it being there.

It is not, however, required.

To put it another way, you're clearly over-thinking doing stuff as yourself or the character, and in the process come to the conclusion it isn't possible to just do stuff without overhinking it.

Aliquid
2018-02-01, 04:59 PM
It is not, however, required.Nothing is required... so why even bother discussing the subject.

Cluedrew
2018-02-01, 05:33 PM
Yeah, I've tried this before, currently my best answer is this: A role-playing game is a combination of 4 other types of games:

Storytelling Game: A game about creating a story with constraints.
Role-Playing Game: A game about making decisions as someone else would. (An unfortunate name I will admit.)
Adventure Game: A game about exploration, discovery and improvising solutions. Not always physical.
War Game: A game about tactical ability, army/party/character creation.
It is not a super precise definition, but it gets most of the ideas I can think of across. And different games focus on different parts of this, for instance on of the things I don't like about D&D is it puts too much time into the war game side.

Pleh
2018-02-01, 06:05 PM
You're forcing the knowledge separation. All you have to do to play an avatar is do stuff. Based on what you want to do. There is only separation of knowledge if you want it to be there, and that is only a problem if you want it to be there and yet still have a problem with it being there.

It is not, however, required.

To put it another way, you're clearly over-thinking doing stuff as yourself or the character, and in the process come to the conclusion it isn't possible to just do stuff without overhinking it.

You are merely ignoring the problem, which doesn't mean it stops existing. I will presume that picking only single points out of my posts indicate that you otherwise have no particular disagreement with any of my other points.

Suppose there were a conversation that went as follows:
1. "I really feel uncomfortable with the amount of chemicals used in the production of our food."
2. "Everything you have ever ate, breathed, drank, and everything that you are is just chemicals."
1. "Ugh, you know what I mean."
2. "But the concern with blanket generalizations is that we can't be sure that you really know what you're talking about. The point is that some chemicals are beneficial for us while others are not, while your language just condemns the inclusion of all chemicals in our food."

To be clear, I'm not trying to open a political discussion, but to illustrate the logical function at work here.

There is a cognitive danger in choosing to be lazy in grouping "dangerous chemicals" without much thought and never taking time to recognize that dealing with chemicals is unavoidable. The other thread about "collaborative storytelling having no meaning" comes to mind, but this is the essential flaw to that argument as well. The "meaning" you claim does not exist actually does exist, except that it has a value that is not always relevant to all games. Therefore, your essential evidence is correct ("RPGs do not have to always be collaborative storytelling") while your conclusion is wrong ("therefore the phrase has no meaning").

The fact that our bodies are comprised of chemicals does not matter to our typical every day decisions, thoughts, and actions. Occasionally, we are exposed to other chemicals such that understanding how these chemicals interact and what affect it has on our health becomes vitally important. It's a question of at what point do we start to see significant problems due to the inaccuracy arise. Likewise, the critical element of Roleplaying being about exploration of character is ALWAYS accurate, despite the fact that we can always define the character to be a known quantity (such as ourselves) to thereby minimize the amount of exploration that is necessary. Metagaming is exactly where the problem of player/character separation of knowledge comes up.

In RPGs, we must always justify our character's actions. If the DM has some creatures sneaking up to ambush, calls for a Perception check to notice, you fail the check, it defeats the purpose of having a chance to fail if you then read between the lines and take actions to prepare for something your character actually noticed. I'm not "forcing the problem." I'm observing that the problem exists in the nature of the game itself. We can, from there, compensate for the problem, or ignore the problem and accept the influence it has over the game.

Saying that Metagaming doesn't exist is like saying, "because I can drive this car home with one wheel missing, therefore I am not missing a wheel, because I couldn't drive this car home with any missing wheels." The fact that a game is not always ruined to a point of losing functionality due to metagaming doesn't mean that metagaming doesn't exist or that it doesn't negatively impact gameplay.

Sometimes metagaming does hurt the game. Other times it doesn't. Pretending it therefore does not exist is not helpful to anyone.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-01, 08:53 PM
It's a game where, from the viewpoint of some character, you decide what you do, and how, and why, in some fictional scenario.

I typically follow this with an example character, an example scenario, and the question "so what do you do?" So far, this has gotten new players on track in 10 minutes or less.

The wargame parts, storytelling parts, adventuring etc. are other elements that are explained as needed. They are not actually vital to understanding what roleplaying games are about.

People who have trouble giving clear, conscise definitions typically have their mind too fixated on idiosyncracies of the hobby, or worse, a particular game, and that makes it difficult for them. They're trying to capture too much, or being too specific. Here's a remedy: go to conventions or such. Actually hold games with the idea of getting a completely new player to play the game in 10 minutes or less. Practice untill you succeed.

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 09:20 AM
It's a game where, from the viewpoint of some character, you decide what you do, and how, and why, in some fictional scenario.I like this a bit more than my version, which is just "make decisions", because it expands on the kinds of decisions.

The "viewpoint" part is interesting, because depending on what you mean, I disagree its inherent to RP. For example, some games allow you to play more than one character. Plenty of games, almost all of them in fact, can be played, as I was pointing out to Pleh, as an player avatar. Some almost require it.

The absolute most common viewpoint I encounter players making decisions from is "I". They'll often write out alternate character details, but the viewpoint most players (unsurprisingly) uses is the amalgam of everything they (as a player) know. Which may or may not, depending on the game rules in question and the table rules and the campaign situation and player themselves, include various things. Such as the players or characters rules knowledge, personality, history, capabilities, current situation/environment, etc.

Some players, like Pleh clearly does, make a clear effort to separate player/character knowledge and then make decisions based purely on the character's only viewpoint. This introduces the possibility of the "metagaming" bugaboo in the process. Which is, of course, a usurping and corruption of the actual meaning of the word.


In RPGs, we must always justify our character's actions. If the DM has some creatures sneaking up to ambush, calls for a Perception check to notice, you fail the check, it defeats the purpose of having a chance to fail if you then read between the lines and take actions to prepare for something your character actually noticed. I'm not "forcing the problem." I'm observing that the problem exists in the nature of the game itself. We can, from there, compensate for the problem, or ignore the problem and accept the influence it has over the game.You just gave a perfect example of what I'm talking about forcing the problem: if a DM is giving away game information he doesn't want the player to have because the character shouldn't know, then it's on him for giving it away. For example, calling for the player to roll a perception check to notice an ambush when calling for the check might change e players actions unintentionally.

And if you DO justify the player having the character knowledge, there is no separation of information to begin with. That's one possible way, often the best way, to address the myth that metagaming, or unwanted player/character separation, is a problem.

Another possible way is for the player to just take I all the information they have about character and situation, and make decisions on what "I" will do.


Sometimes metagaming does hurt the game. Other times it doesn't. Pretending it therefore does not exist is not helpful to anyone.Any unwanted separation of player/character knowledge is the fault of the gaming table creating it. They've forced the separation. If they accept it and make decisions based on all information available, and don't give out information the players don't need to have, then there is no metagaming. At least not in the way most people try to use the perjorative RPG version of the word.

Pleh
2018-02-02, 09:37 AM
You aren't addressing my points.

If there is Zero player/character separation of knowledge, you are playing Neverending RPG and the characters are aware of the fact that they are in a game and that their actions are controlled by a person in another world. At this point, Metagame becomes part of the game.

If you are not doing that (which your descriptions of your games leads me to believe that you are not), then you are enforcing separation of knowledge at some point or another and claiming to not be enforcing it anywhere.

Once we concede that SOME separation of knowledge is necessary to RPG, then we can start quibbling about exactly where best to draw the line.

"Player Avatar" is a meaningless phrase. It is a special case of Roleplay where you set Character = "Alternative Universe Version of Me". You are still playing a separate character, generating a large amount of Metagame influence in your games, and just embracing the problem as an inherent aspect of play.

There's nothing wrong with doing that, but it is absolutely what you are doing.

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 09:42 AM
Once we concede that SOME separation of knowledge is necessary to RPG, then we can start quibbling about exactly where best to draw the line.
Seperation of knowledge is not required, and seperati alone is not what most people mean by metagaming.

It is entirely possible to design an RPG, or even play an existing RPG, where all the rules knowledge and execution is handled by the GM, and the player merely makes decisions for what they want to do and rolls dicE. The player may not even have a general idea of what their character can do, or their history.

And most people, when they talk about metagaming, mean using unwanted player/character separation to make decisions. If it's unwanted, then why did you allow it to happen? If you accept that the player can make decisions based on everything he knows, the rules and all the details of the character and the situation, then there is no unwanted separation to worry about.

In short, using the myth of metagaming, or unwanted player/character separation, to justify separate character from the PC is part of RPGs is unwarranted on multiple levels.

Pleh
2018-02-02, 10:07 AM
No, we're not redefining metagame to suit your preference. It already has a perfectly functional (and, honestly, superior) definition.

Metagame means using ANY game decisions that are informed by the combination of player and character knowledge. The fact that it is sometimes admissible, not harmful, or even beneficial to some games or moments of gameplay in no way changes what it essentially IS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with embracing metagame in your gameplay. Just don't try to redefine it so we have to call it something else. That isn't helpful. Metagame has a descriptive definition: gameplay that employs outside perspective or self-referential knowledge. The fact that you find a high degree of metagame in your games fun is just a matter of preference, but it doesn't change the effect that metagame gameplay has on RPGs. Your game will not look like my game because it accepts a substantially higher degree of metagame.

Now, I totally agree that superior game design seeks to avoid leaving pitfalls where players and DMs easily stumble into an unacceptable degree of metagame. That may be one of the most essential jobs of a TTRPG system by itself: how much work does the system leave to the players to run the game to an acceptable degree of suspension of disbelief?

I understand the desire to draw better terminology to help highlight the understanding that some metagaming can be not only fun, but essential or even itself the goal of the game.

But when Metagame is the point of the game, I'm not sure RPG is an apt description anymore. I don't know if there's a better name for it, but maybe that's where we need a new name for things.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 10:46 AM
No, we're not redefining metagame to suit your preference. It already has a perfectly functional (and, honestly, superior) definition.

Metagame means using ANY game decisions that are informed by the combination of player and character knowledge. The fact that it is sometimes admissible, not harmful, or even beneficial to some games or moments of gameplay in no way changes what it essentially IS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with embracing metagame in your gameplay. Just don't try to redefine it so we have to call it something else. That isn't helpful. Metagame has a descriptive definition: gameplay that employs outside perspective or self-referential knowledge. The fact that you find a high degree of metagame in your games fun is just a matter of preference, but it doesn't change the effect that metagame gameplay has on RPGs. Your game will not look like my game because it accepts a substantially higher degree of metagame.

Now, I totally agree that superior game design seeks to avoid leaving pitfalls where players and DMs easily stumble into an unacceptable degree of metagame. That may be one of the most essential jobs of a TTRPG system by itself: how much work does the system leave to the players to run the game to an acceptable degree of suspension of disbelief?

I understand the desire to draw better terminology to help highlight the understanding that some metagaming can be not only fun, but essential or even itself the goal of the game.

But when Metagame is the point of the game, I'm not sure RPG is an apt description anymore. I don't know if there's a better name for it, but maybe that's where we need a new name for things.


That's getting into why I consider "narrative rules" (such as "the door jams because I, the player, want that to happen now in the story... my character has nothing to do with it jamming and doesn't do anything to make it happen... it's just a coincidence") and "author-stance" decision making to be metagaming.

However, that's only in the value-neutral descriptive sense -- I also understand that for better or worse there's a lot of negative baggage and finger-pointy-ness attached to that word for a lot of gamers, so I've tried to make myself avoid using it unless I'm going to explain in detail what I mean by it and that it's not meant to be a condemnation or judgement of the gamer or their approach.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-02, 10:51 AM
The "viewpoint" part is interesting, because depending on what you mean, I disagree its inherent to RP. For example, some games allow you to play more than one character. Plenty of games, almost all of them in fact, can be played, as I was pointing out to Pleh, as an player avatar. Some almost require it.

It is fundamental to roleplaying because you can't roleplay without a role, AKA the viewpoint character.

This said, the player's role can just be themselves.

It is in fact highly usefull when teaching basics of acting and roleplaying, to start with "you are in this fictional situation, what do you do?"

Just as well, there are games which, while nominally roleplaying games, are playable without paying attention to actually playing a role. The line between D&D and Warhammer is pretty thin. This isn't a reason to change the definition of a roleplaying game, it just means some games can serve multiple functions decently.

How much various games stress playing the role, AKA staying in character, is also variable. In your typical game players switch between acting as their characters and acting as themselves on the drop of the hat. It's even more pronounced on the GM's side, as the GM often has to simultaneously be making decisions from the viewpoint of multiple different characters as well as the arbitrator of the game. It's better not to get distracted by that - all of these kinds of dynamics are additional layers, trying to bake them into the definition of an RPG just leads to confused definitions.

weckar
2018-02-02, 11:11 AM
Can I just quickly bump in to say how happy I am that nobody has brought up 'acting/talking in character'?
Thank you.

Aliquid
2018-02-02, 11:16 AM
It is fundamental to roleplaying because you can't roleplay without a role, AKA the viewpoint character.

This said, the player's role can just be themselves.

It is in fact highly usefull when teaching basics of acting and roleplaying, to start with "you are in this fictional situation, what do you do?".and even in that situation the player would need to put In some effort, depending on how deeply they want to get “into character” (even if that character is them).

Because if the question was “this is a terrifying situation. What do you do next”... well the player isn’t terrified, the character is, and the player would have to think “how would I act if I was terrified?” If they wanted to be honest, their “what do I do now” answer might not be the best strategic decision of a person casually sitting in a chair.


Can I just quickly bump in to say how happy I am that nobody has brought up 'acting/talking in character'?
Thank you.that is the number one assumption I have come across from people who know very little about RPGs. I tell them I play, they say “so you dress up and talk in silly voices?”

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-02, 11:39 AM
Can I just quickly bump in to say how happy I am that nobody has brought up 'acting/talking in character'?
Thank you.

That is one of the most trivial ways to roleplay, but it's too superficial to serve as a definition.

It's not wondrous at all if people think of the most trivial, obvious example, though, especially if they don't know much of the hobby.

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 12:29 PM
No, we're not redefining metagame to suit your preference. It already has a perfectly functional (and, honestly, superior) definition.

Metagame means using ANY game decisions that are informed by the combination of player and character knowledge. The fact that it is sometimes admissible, not harmful, or even beneficial to some games or moments of gameplay in no way changes what it essentially IS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with embracing metagame in your gameplay. Just don't try to redefine it so we have to call it something else. That isn't helpful. Metagame has a descriptive definition: gameplay that employs outside perspective or self-referential knowledge. The fact that you find a high degree of metagame in your games fun is just a matter of preference, but it doesn't change the effect that metagame gameplay has on RPGs. Your game will not look like my game because it accepts a substantially higher degree of metagame.Okay. So apparently you just going to insist on your own personal definition of "metagame". It appears to be, translated into something that makes some kind of sense: metagame is everything the player knows but the character doesn't.

In the first place, I do not agree that this must exist in an RPG.

In the second place, the logical extension of your statement that you can "[embrace] metagame in your gameplay" when it is exists, is that the metagame ceases to exist. You've eliminated it by accepting that the player knows some form of everything the PC knows in-game, and the PC knows some form of everything the Player knows about the game.

So it appears to be that despite a different definition of "metagame", you should agree with me that player / character separation isn't required as part of playing an RPG.


It is fundamental to roleplaying because you can't roleplay without a role, AKA the viewpoint character.

This said, the player's role can just be themselves.

It is in fact highly usefull when teaching basics of acting and roleplaying, to start with "you are in this fictional situation, what do you do?"Got it.

Pleh
2018-02-02, 01:28 PM
Okay. So apparently you just going to insist on your own personal definition of "metagame". It appears to be, translated into something that makes some kind of sense: metagame is everything the player knows but the character doesn't.

It's not my definition. That's the one you find if you google to ask the rest of the english speaking language (including the definition used in specific application to RPGs). I am not the one inventing new uses for the word.


the logical extension of your statement that you can "[embrace] metagame in your gameplay" when it is exists, is that the metagame ceases to exist. You've eliminated it by accepting that the player knows some form of everything the PC knows in-game, and the PC knows some form of everything the Player knows about the game.

Not at all. Embracing the metagame doesn't eliminate the metagame. It's allowing the metagame to change the tone and theme of the game. The metagame is still present. If anything, it just widens the scope of what is considered acceptable in metagame.

"So, now that my character knows they are a character in someone else's game, my character would like to trade an item with their player."

This makes no sense before we embrace the metagame, but after we embrace it, it's a proposal that now has context. It may or may not be allowed in the game, but there's less reason reject the proposal. If the connection between the player and character is this literal to the character, there's a lot more room to smash that 4th wall in even more fantastic ways.

Not that embracing the metagame forces you to tear apart the 4th wall more, just that such a dramatic shift in tone and theme makes such a large change to the game that much more believable.


So it appears to be that despite a different definition of "metagame", you should agree with me that player / character separation isn't required as part of playing an RPG.

Well, it's not required for playing a game, but I still question whether we should still be calling it an RPG at that point. Maybe there's another name that would describe it better.

"Fantasy Simulation Game"?

Aliquid
2018-02-02, 03:45 PM
Okay. So apparently you just going to insist on your own personal definition of "metagame". It appears to be, translated into something that makes some kind of sense: metagame is everything the player knows but the character doesn't.I would modify that a bit. The player knows all sorts of things the character doesn't know. When this knowledge impacts game decisions, it becomes metagaming.


In the second place, the logical extension of your statement that you can "[embrace] metagame in your gameplay" when it is exists, is that the metagame ceases to exist. You've eliminated it by accepting that the player knows some form of everything the PC knows in-game, and the PC knows some form of everything the Player knows about the game.Not necessarily. The character might act on player knowledge, but that doesn't mean that the character knows what the player knows.

Use the example of the D&D Troll. Lets say the character has never seen a troll before and knows nothing about them. The player knows that fighting with fire or acid is the best tactic, so he says "I attack the troll with my torch". The DM says "why would your character decide to do that?". The player says "I don't know... he just feels like burning things today".


So it appears to be that despite a different definition of "metagame", you should agree with me that player / character separation isn't required as part of playing an RPG.Very few things are actually required for playing a RPG, we all play differently... but I think it is fair to say that the majority of GMs out there encourage player/character separation. Many RPG rules specifically discuss this subject.

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 04:08 PM
Use the example of the D&D Troll. Lets say the character has never seen a troll before and knows nothing about them. The player knows that fighting with fire or acid is the best tactic, so he says "I attack the troll with my torch". The DM says "why would your character decide to do that?". The player says "I don't know... he just feels like burning things today". Yup. The D&D Troll is a perfect example of someone forcing player/character separation, in order to make it a problem. In this case, the DM.

To be clear, both the DM and the player could instead assume: if the player knows Trolls are vulnerable to fire, the character knows. Somehow. Details don't matter. Removing the "problem" of separation of player/character knowledge.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 04:45 PM
Yup. The D&D Troll is a perfect example of someone forcing player/character separation, in order to make it a problem. In this case, the DM.

To be clear, both the DM and the player could instead assume: if the player knows Trolls are vulnerable to fire, the character knows. Somehow. Details don't matter. Removing the "problem" of separation of player/character knowledge.


Some players are fine with this -- the PC is their playing piece in the "shared mental space gameboard".

Other players want something else -- for their PC to be or feel like a "person-who-could-be-real" inhabiting a "world-that-could-be-real", to use my verisimilitude jargon.

Neither is wrong.

~~~~

IMO, the "you don't know about trolls and fire" thing becomes an issue in D&D because of the basic coded-in "zero to worldbreaker" / Hero's Journey assumptions of the game... every character is assumed to need to learn all these things all over again from scratch. There's an unspoken, perhaps even unrealized, attempt to replicate the "farmboy crossing the threshold and going into the unknown" arc.

This is fine when the player is new and learning too, but eventually it can become simply tiresome after a dozen "green" characters and going through the motions of not-knowing yet again.

Personally, I think it's better to assume that most characters have some idea about the monsters and threats that are a part of life in their world.

As a player, I'm tempted to take a general Lore skill to reflect this, if the GM doesn't agree that such knowledge is a basic part of living in that world, because pretending to be a clueless noob gets old fast.

Aliquid
2018-02-02, 04:48 PM
Yup. The D&D Troll is a perfect example of someone forcing player/character separation, in order to make it a problem. In this case, the DM.

To be clear, both the DM and the player could instead assume: if the player knows Trolls are vulnerable to fire, the character knows. Somehow. Details don't matter. Removing the "problem" of separation of player/character knowledge.I find it interesting how you use the phrase "forcing player/character separation", as if it was this unnatural thing that is being forced into the game... when in my experience player/character separation is the natural default perspective. As I said, many systems discuss this specifically in the rules.

And of course, it works both ways. Typically, there are plenty of things that the character would know that the player doesn't know. That's what knowledge rolls, and skill rolls are all about.


IMO, the "you don't know about trolls and fire" thing becomes an issue in D&D because of the basic coded-in "zero to worldbreaker" / Hero's Journey assumptions of the game... every character is assumed to need to learn all these things all over again from scratch. There's an unspoken, perhaps even unrealized, attempt to replicate the "farmboy crossing the threshold and going into the unknown" arc. Agreed, but using the troll example is a quick and easy example that most people on these boards will understand. The problem comes when you have a player that has memorized the Monster Manual, and you can't throw anything at them that they don't already know about... and you have to take the extra time to create your own monsters, or tweak the existing ones... if you want to present a real challenge. (or actually have a player who is able to separate player and character knowledge.)

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 04:55 PM
I find it interesting how you use the phrase "forcing player/character separation", as if it was this unnatural thing that is being forced into the game... when in my experience player/character separation is the natural default perspective. As I said, many systems discuss this specifically in the rules.I assumed the resulting separation was being viewed as a negative thing, since we were discussing Trolls and a DM wanting to know how the PC knew what the player knows. If it's being intentionally done and not seen as a problem, then of course it's not forced.

But the point here was it is not required. The player/character separation gap can be ignored completely, opened, or closed. It's not a required part of Roleplaying Games, so any definition of RPGs shouldn't reference it.


Other players want something else -- for their PC to be or feel like a "person-who-could-be-real" inhabiting a "world-that-could-be-real", to use my verisimilitude jargon.
Yup. That's why I like to close the player/character separation gap completely, to assume complete knowledge of everything game related both ways, in some form. To increase the feeling that that it's a person that could be real inhabiting a world that could be real.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 05:06 PM
Agreed, but using the troll example is a quick and easy example that most people on these boards will understand. The problem comes when you have a player that has memorized the Monster Manual, and you can't throw anything at them that they don't already know about... and you have to take the extra time to create your own monsters, or tweak the existing ones... if you want to present a real challenge. (or actually have a player who is able to separate player and character knowledge.)


Other options:

The PC of that well-read player could buy a skill or three to reflect their broad knowledge of monsters and creatures, if that works.

If all your players are experienced and effectively have the Monster Manual memorized, maybe give the skill(s) out for free as a placeholder on the character sheets instead of worrying about it.

Just as every campaign doesn't need to progress to level 20+, not every campaign has to start at level 1, either (assuming D&D for a moment).

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 05:15 PM
Yup. That's why I like to close the player/character separation gap completely, to assume complete knowledge of everything game related both ways, in some form. To increase the feeling that that it's a person that could be real inhabiting a world that could be real.


That's... kinda sideways from what I was saying.

If that "person" living in that fantasy-medieval world or that far-future-space-fiction world knows everything you know and only what you know -- which is what you appear to be saying -- that's not really a person-who-could-be-real in that other world, that's just you transposed into that world, including the knowledge that it's a game. It's not really a person, it's your "avatar".

And as noted, it works both ways, your character typically knows things that you don't know about living and fighting in that other world, which is just as much of a player/character separation as you knowing things that the character doesn't know.

Again, this isn't judgement and I'm not telling you how to play, but... "there is no separation between my character and my self" is really not the same thing as "my character is a person-who-could-be-real in the secondary world of the game".

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 05:22 PM
If that "person" living in that fantasy-medieval world or that far-future-space-fiction world knows everything you know and only what you know -- which is what you appear to be saying -- that's not really a person-who-could-be-real in that other world, that's just you transposed into that world, including the knowledge that it's a game. It's not really a person, it's your "avatar".Sure. But you can also eliminate the game knowledge gap, thereby increasing verisimilitude. The closer the player and character are in knowledge, the ... well, the closer they are. Everything you know about the game the character does, and vice versa, sorta kinda. (I mean, in-game it might be "I'm good at Arcane Lore" rather than "I have a +4 bonus to Arcana".) Out of game stuff (ie real world stuff) the player knows isn't really relevant.

Example:
Whether or not a character knows Trolls are vulnerable to fire? Game knowledge. Provided by either player knowledge or in-game experience or DM providing character knowledge to player.
Whether or not the player knows how to disable traps? Game knowledge. Provided by mechanical chance of success on character sheet.
Whether or not a character knows light it bounded at C? Irrelevant real world knowledge.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 05:27 PM
Sure. But you can also eliminate the game knowledge gap, thereby increasing verisimilitude. The closer the player and character are in knowledge, the ... well, the closer they are. Everything you know about the game the character does, and vice versa, sorta kinda. (I mean, in-game it might be "I'm good at Arcane Lore" rather than "I have a +4 bonus to Arcana".) Out of game stuff (ie real world stuff) the player knows isn't really relevant.

Example:
Whether or not a character knows Trolls are vulnerable to fire? Game knowledge. Provided by either player knowledge or in-game experience or DM providing character knowledge to player.
Whether or not the player knows how to disable traps? Game knowledge. Provided by mechanical chance of success on character sheet.
Whether or not a character knows light it bounded at C? Irrelevant real world knowledge.


It seems like you're ignoring the flipside of the PC knowing things that the player doesn't. If your PC knows things you don't know, like how to cast a spell or how to ride a horse or how to fight with a sword and shield or how to calculate a 5-dimentional jumpspace plot, or pick things that you don't know... that's another version of "player/character separation".

Unless you're simply chalking that up to whatever's on the character sheet?

What you're describing here isn't verisimilitude... it's "PC as playing piece".


Again, there's nothing wrong with that approach, if it's what gives what you want from the game, but it's no more fair or accurate to make a grab for "character as a person who could be real" and try to cram it into the "game" approach, than it is for a few of the posters we were arguing with in another thread to make a grab for "person who could be real" and try to cram it into the "story" approach.

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 06:15 PM
It seems like you're ignoring the flipside of the PC knowing things that the player doesn't. If your PC knows things you don't know, like how to cast a spell or how to ride a horse or how to fight with a sword and shield or how to calculate a 5-dimentional jumpspace plot, or pick things that you don't know... that's another version of "player/character separation".

Unless you're simply chalking that up to whatever's on the character sheet?Yes, but unless you want to go out and train yourself in horse-riding and sword-fighting, that's the entire point of game rules. To provide a system that's close enough for resolving something you don't know. Character knows they're pretty good at Horse-riding, can estimate their chance of success if they have enough info, and may be willing to take risks even when he can't estimate the difficulty of the task at hand. Player knows the character has Animal Handling +4, what the odds are if the DM tells them the DC or range ("Hard task", and may be willing to take risks.


What you're describing here isn't verisimilitude... it's "PC as playing piece".Not at all. For me, things that close the player/character knowledge gap increases verisimilitude. Anything that makes it bigger decreases it. That's what defines my engagement, and ability to suspend disbelief, in the game.

I mean, I'm not personally prepared to go out and LARP in order to do a TRPG, but that'd sure increase versimilitude.

Edit: And conversely, I'm totally willing to assume quite a drastic degree of player/character knowledge separation. I've played plenty of war-gaming, or PCs as a playing piece. That's a very large degree of player/character seperation.

ie you've got it back to front as far as I'm concerned.

ross
2018-02-02, 06:20 PM
An rpg is collaborative storytelling

Tanarii
2018-02-02, 06:24 PM
An rpg is collaborative storytelling
This is the sign I need to bow out of this thread before it's too late. For everyone else. :smallamused:

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 06:30 PM
This is the sign I need to bow out of this thread before it's too late. For everyone else. :smallamused:

Based on posting history, that one is just looking to provoke.

Aliquid
2018-02-02, 06:47 PM
Other options:

The PC of that well-read player could buy a skill or three to reflect their broad knowledge of monsters and creatures, if that works.

If all your players are experienced and effectively have the Monster Manual memorized, maybe give the skill(s) out for free as a placeholder on the character sheets instead of worrying about it.Most people I have come across are happy to work out a solution, and these are good options.

If I had a player that knew the MM inside and out (and the other players didn't), I could suggest a variety of options:
- "dump a bunch of skill points into Lore, and you are free to use your knowledge in game", or
- "Don't put any points in Lore, and accept that your character doesn't know what you know... and play accordingly", or
- "This other player put a bunch of points into Lore, so you can tell him anything you think is relevant, and his character will know it 'in game'"
- etc.



I mean, I'm not personally prepared to go out and LARP in order to do a TRPG, but that'd sure increase versimilitude.I wouldn't consider that an increase in versimultitude. I would find it easier to sit down at a table and imagine a fantastical land with fantastical creatures and magic/sci-fi gear, and then immerse myself into that world. LARPing would have too much 'real world' distracting me.

Pleh
2018-02-03, 06:28 AM
It looks like a couple more people are starting to hit on what I'm seeing here, which is encouraging.


Yes, but unless you want to go out and train yourself in horse-riding and sword-fighting, that's the entire point of game rules. To provide a system that's close enough for resolving something you don't know. Character knows they're pretty good at Horse-riding, can estimate their chance of success if they have enough info, and may be willing to take risks even when he can't estimate the difficulty of the task at hand. Player knows the character has Animal Handling +4, what the odds are if the DM tells them the DC or range ("Hard task", and may be willing to take risks.

Not at all. For me, things that close the player/character knowledge gap increases verisimilitude. Anything that makes it bigger decreases it. That's what defines my engagement, and ability to suspend disbelief, in the game.

I mean, I'm not personally prepared to go out and LARP in order to do a TRPG, but that'd sure increase versimilitude.

Edit: And conversely, I'm totally willing to assume quite a drastic degree of player/character knowledge separation. I've played plenty of war-gaming, or PCs as a playing piece. That's a very large degree of player/character seperation.

ie you've got it back to front as far as I'm concerned.

You seem to be exclusively defining "verisimilitude" as "simulation-ism." To you, the game never seems more real than when you feel like YOU are really there, no matter how bonkers or fantastic the world you are supposed to be in happens to be. For you (and others), Verisimilitude is only a measure of how engaging the game is to your sense of placing yourself into the action.

Most people I've seen use the word, "verisimilitude" means that the world itself is coherent and believable/understandable (whether we are interacting with it in character or simply analyzing it out of character as a thought experiment). The idea of a person from our world even being IN this other world oftentimes degrades this kind of verisimilitude. For myself and others, Verisimilitude requires the world to adhere to some particular set of laws governing that world's reality. Thus, if Players are just an Avatar both in the story and out, there must be laws of reality governing that connection.

The Merriam-Webster definition seems to support either interpretation: "having the appearance of truth, depicting realism"

But I think using the term for both kinds of experience of a game is very misleading (as per the discussion in this thread suggests). I feel Verisimilitude (depicting realism) is better describing "Narrative coherency". I still think we should find a different term for what you are suggesting and not simply equivocate them. They are essentially different types of game.

I feel like it's how Action movies are different from Mystery movies. Action movies are all about imagining how awesome it would feel to be an action hero. Mystery movies (at least the good ones) are all about resolving a puzzle through careful placement of story elements that all tie together at the end. For Action movies, verisimilitude can be about how well we accept the idea that someone could survive such an encounter, while in Mystery movies, its all about how believable the clues are without them being totally obvious.

Does the World feel real, or the Hero?

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-03, 08:49 AM
It looks like a couple more people are starting to hit on what I'm seeing here, which is encouraging.



You seem to be exclusively defining "verisimilitude" as "simulation-ism." To you, the game never seems more real than when you feel like YOU are really there, no matter how bonkers or fantastic the world you are supposed to be in happens to be. For you (and others), Verisimilitude is only a measure of how engaging the game is to your sense of placing yourself into the action.

Most people I've seen use the word, "verisimilitude" means that the world itself is coherent and believable/understandable (whether we are interacting with it in character or simply analyzing it out of character as a thought experiment). The idea of a person from our world even being IN this other world oftentimes degrades this kind of verisimilitude. For myself and others, Verisimilitude requires the world to adhere to some particular set of laws governing that world's reality. Thus, if Players are just an Avatar both in the story and out, there must be laws of reality governing that connection.

The Merriam-Webster definition seems to support either interpretation: "having the appearance of truth, depicting realism"

But I think using the term for both kinds of experience of a game is very misleading (as per the discussion in this thread suggests). I feel Verisimilitude (depicting realism) is better describing "Narrative coherency". I still think we should find a different term for what you are suggesting and not simply equivocate them. They are essentially different types of game.

I feel like it's how Action movies are different from Mystery movies. Action movies are all about imagining how awesome it would feel to be an action hero. Mystery movies (at least the good ones) are all about resolving a puzzle through careful placement of story elements that all tie together at the end. For Action movies, verisimilitude can be about how well we accept the idea that someone could survive such an encounter, while in Mystery movies, its all about how believable the clues are without them being totally obvious.

Does the World feel real, or the Hero?

To expand on that...

There's a reason we have engagement, immersion, and verisimilitude, as three different words.

The engagement axis, the immersion axis, and the verisimilitude axis, are not corresponding lines, and their relationships vary between gamers.

Quertus
2018-02-03, 09:59 AM
Personally, I think it's better to assume that most characters have some idea about the monsters and threats that are a part of life in their world.

As a player, I'm tempted to take a general Lore skill to reflect this, if the GM doesn't agree that such knowledge is a basic part of living in that world, because pretending to be a clueless noob gets old fast.


The PC of that well-read player could buy a skill or three to reflect their broad knowledge of monsters and creatures, if that works.

Just as every campaign doesn't need to progress to level 20+, not every campaign has to start at level 1, either (assuming D&D for a moment).

I tend to meticulously map who knows what, who trains whom, etc - including what misinformation gets passed along.

In D&D, in particular, I find that this works well, as even 1st level character are supposedly trained by someone who has actually earned XP somehow. Them knowing nothing of their world, from stories or personal experience, let alone training, makes them feel quite alien to their world.


Agreed, but using the troll example is a quick and easy example that most people on these boards will understand. The problem comes when you have a player that has memorized the Monster Manual, and you can't throw anything at them that they don't already know about... and you have to take the extra time to create your own monsters, or tweak the existing ones... if you want to present a real challenge. (or actually have a player who is able to separate player and character knowledge.)

You know, I love puzzle monsters, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that you can't have a real challenge without them.

So, let's think this through. I've built lots of Magic decks for my friends to play with. I've got most of them memorized (although I do occasionally get surprised). Is it a different type of challenge, me going against one of my decks, than me going against a deck someone else built? Knowing whether this blue deck has Counter Spell, or this white deck has Disenchant?


But the point here was it is not required. The player/character separation gap can be ignored completely, opened, or closed. It's not a required part of Roleplaying Games, so any definition of RPGs shouldn't reference it.

Yup. That's why I like to close the player/character separation gap completely, to assume complete knowledge of everything game related both ways, in some form. To increase the feeling that that it's a person that could be real inhabiting a world that could be real.

Well, when you're playing the role of someone whose knowledge differs from your own, one could certainly argue that role-playing requires the separation of player and character knowledge.

And, although it's already been covered, I find limiting my PC to my knowledge to rather hurt that v-word / hurt my ability to believe that the character could be a real inhabitant of that world.

Pleh
2018-02-03, 10:00 AM
That makes sense, though I've never heard a formal delineation. Care to elaborate?

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-03, 10:55 AM
That makes sense, though I've never heard a formal delineation. Care to elaborate?


Honestly, I'm putting it together on the fly because I've never previously seen someone insist that verisimilitude and playing a self-expy avatar intrinsically linked.

So, these are not hard assertions, but starting points / something to work with:


Engagement -- how much the player cares about or is focused on what's going on, about the character, about the "world".

Immersion -- how much the player "loses themselves" in the presently occurring in-world events and in-character experiences.*

Verisimilitude -- how much the setting feels like a place-that-could-be-real, and the characters feel like people-who-could-be-real, see my sig and the definition of the word.




(* not to be confused with anti-immersion crowd's notion of being delusional or literally forgetting you're playing a game)

Tanarii
2018-02-03, 11:35 AM
Honestly, I'm putting it together on the fly because I've never previously seen someone insist that verisimilitude and playing a self-expy avatar intrinsically linked.I wasn't talking about a self-expy. I was talking about assuming the player knows some form of something about the game world that the character knows, and the character knows some form of something about the game world the player knows.

I'm not assuming the player knows what the characters mother looks like, or vice versa. But the player knows things like "trolls are vulnerable to fire" then so does the character. If the character knows things like Runes of Power can be broken by scraping the seal away, then the player knows they have Arcana +11. If the DM tells the player the gap is further than they can normally jump so it's a DC 15 to clear and they look at their +4 bonus, then the character is looking at it figuring 50/50 they can make it.

If the player makes snap decisions (personality), and is playing a PC who likes to think first (personality) then the actual end result blend will almost always appear multiple personality to anyone looking at it from the outside. Sometimes snap decisions, sometimes insisting on taking their time to think.

Information flows and is translated both ways and blends together in the players head, resulting in mix that is still just one person. There is no metagaming and player/character separation unless you want there to be separation and draw some clear lines, and even then it'll still blur.

And that separation is only a problem if you want it to be, since you're doing it by choice. It's neither required NOR natural. There is no real character separate from the player. There is only what's going on in the players head. (Edit: this is why many later RPGs provide so many tools for trying to do exactly this, and reams and reams of words written on the subject. It requires a special effort and tools to do it with, if you want to do it.)


Immersion -- how much the player "loses themselves" in the presently occurring in-world events and in-character experiences.*

Verisimilitude -- how much the setting feels like a place-that-could-be-real, and the characters feel like people-who-could-be-real, see my sig and the definition of the word.Okay fair enough. I guess under those definitions I was talking more about immersion.

Pleh
2018-02-03, 01:13 PM
Ok, honest question.

Trolls are Giant type requiring Knowledge Nature to identify and know statblock information in D&D 3.5. DC to know 1 piece of useful info is 10+HD which for Troll is 16. You get another piece of info for each 5 points you make it past the DC.

Let's say you never make a check with your character and never put in points in knowledge nature skill because you already memorized the MM. You exploit the Troll's weakness for fire expertly and end the session efficiently.

Next week, the group decides to allow a new player to use your character sheet for the night. The Characters have only had time to rest for the night. This new player has no knowledge of the Troll's statblock. They fight an identical Troll the next morning and the DM offers a Knowledge check to the new player, which rolls a natural 2.

How did the exact same character manage to totally forget such critical information overnight?

You say, "forcing the problem." I say, "insisting on narrative consistency."

Tanarii
2018-02-03, 01:27 PM
How did the exact same character manage to totally forget such critical information overnight?It's not the exact same character if two different people are playing it.

To be clear: characters don't exist independent of the players. Any more than they exist independent of an author, comic book artist, director, or actor in other mediums. "narrative consistency" isn't required in RPGs any more than in those mediums. In fact, in all mediums it's often ignored in various ways due to a change in the person behind the character.

Again, not required, nor a problem unless you make it one.

kyoryu
2018-02-03, 01:39 PM
Ok, honest question.

Trolls are Giant type requiring Knowledge Nature to identify and know statblock information in D&D 3.5. DC to know 1 piece of useful info is 10+HD which for Troll is 16. You get another piece of info for each 5 points you make it past the DC.

Let's say you never make a check with your character and never put in points in knowledge nature skill because you already memorized the MM. You exploit the Troll's weakness for fire expertly and end the session efficiently.

Next week, the group decides to allow a new player to use your character sheet for the night. The Characters have only had time to rest for the night. This new player has no knowledge of the Troll's statblock. They fight an identical Troll the next morning and the DM offers a Knowledge check to the new player, which rolls a natural 2.

How did the exact same character manage to totally forget such critical information overnight?

You say, "forcing the problem." I say, "insisting on narrative consistency."

Well, presuming someone at the table remembers that the character knew that previously, then the GM is wrong for forcing the knowledge roll and should just offer the information.

Otherwise, nobody remembered so there is no perceived inconsistency, any more than if the original player forgot that the character knew that.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-03, 01:43 PM
To be clear: characters don't exist independent of the players.


Regardless of whether that's true or not, for those seeking verisimilitude, it cannot feel true. Despite the contradiction, despite knowing at one level it's not true, at another level the character has to feel real, or as if they could be real at least.

And that's where what you've been talking about diverges strongly from verisimilitude.

Tanarii
2018-02-03, 03:51 PM
Regardless of whether that's true or not, for those seeking verisimilitude, it cannot feel true. Despite the contradiction, despite knowing at one level it's not true, at another level the character has to feel real, or as if they could be real at least.

And that's where what you've been talking about diverges strongly from verisimilitude.
Okay so clearly you and I define "verisimilitude" complete differently. To me, immersion in the character/game, and verisimilitude/believability/suspension of disbelief all go hand in hand.

Edit: actually, I think it's more likely we find different things believable, and more importantly different things break believability and our ability to overlook those things that break it. Perhaps it's more accurate to say: when I am immersed, I am perfectly willing to easily overlook things that break verisimilitude. I'll have to think about that, but it seems likely that's true.

Pleh
2018-02-03, 04:13 PM
Well, presuming someone at the table remembers that the character knew that previously, then the GM is wrong for forcing the knowledge roll and should just offer the information.

Otherwise, nobody remembered so there is no perceived inconsistency, any more than if the original player forgot that the character knew that.

Ah! Ah! But! But!

If characters are not independent of their players, then the DM was NOT wrong (even if the inequality does get perceived), because they were dealing with a different character, even though it was supposed to represent the same "person" in the "story."

This is exactly the problem I'm trying to point out.

Change the scenario slightly.

The new player is no longer playing another player's character, but a character that is mechanically identical.

One player benefits from knowledge about monsters without needing to roll anything. The other must accept a chance to fail at what is given automatically to their doppleganger.

Exactly what about the advantage of superior system mastery should we expect to bleed through into live game advantages? Sure, this can't be perfectly controlled, but surely allowing meta knowledge to compensate for a character's deficiency in knowledge is broken like allowing a real world body builder to give their wizard the benefit of the player's strength?

Aliquid
2018-02-03, 05:29 PM
Okay so clearly you and I define "verisimilitude" complete differently. To me, immersion in the character/game, and verisimilitude/believability/suspension of disbelief all go hand in hand.

Edit: actually, I think it's more likely we find different things believable, and more importantly different things break believability and our ability to overlook those things that break it. Perhaps it's more accurate to say: when I am immersed, I am perfectly willing to easily overlook things that break verisimilitude. I'll have to think about that, but it seems likely that's true.being willing to overlook things that break believability is “suspension of disbelief”

With versimultitude, you change your mindset to accept things as true “in world”. “This breaks the laws of physics? No big deal, this world must have different natural laws”. As long as it is internally consistent, it is completely believable.

kyoryu
2018-02-04, 11:53 PM
Ah! Ah! But! But!

If characters are not independent of their players, then the DM was NOT wrong (even if the inequality does get perceived), because they were dealing with a different character, even though it was supposed to represent the same "person" in the "story."

This is exactly the problem I'm trying to point out.

I've never heard of a group playing as if the same character, played by a different person, would be considered a different character.

Change the scenario slightly.


The new player is no longer playing another player's character, but a character that is mechanically identical.

One player benefits from knowledge about monsters without needing to roll anything. The other must accept a chance to fail at what is given automatically to their doppleganger.

Uh, yeah? The DC, in that case, basically represents "hey, have you come across this before". That can clearly vary between two characters.


Exactly what about the advantage of superior system mastery should we expect to bleed through into live game advantages? Sure, this can't be perfectly controlled, but surely allowing meta knowledge to compensate for a character's deficiency in knowledge is broken like allowing a real world body builder to give their wizard the benefit of the player's strength?

Right, which is why it's usually kind of discouraged, but at the same time, everybody recognizes that there's no perfect way to handle it.

I really, really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Tanarii
2018-02-05, 12:57 AM
I've never heard of a group playing as if the same character, played by a different person, would be considered a different character.
I've never heard of the a group playing as if the same character, played by a different person, must play exactly the same way. It's a different player playing them, you'd expect them to not to make the same decisions. To compare to other media: You don't expect Adam West's Batman to act the same way as Christian Bale's Batman.

Which leads to the most common example: A character is taken over is on a temporary basis because the player is absent. In that case, typically the GM or other player does make any critical decisions for them. They fade into the background, so that when the player comes back they don't have to say they wouldn't have done that. Because it's generally recognized that a different player won't make the same decisions, so the character will behave differently. They're not the same if they're filtered through a different player's decision making.

Pleh
2018-02-05, 06:10 AM
I've never heard of a group playing as if the same character, played by a different person, would be considered a different character.

I really, really don't understand the point you're trying to make.


I've never heard of the a group playing as if the same character, played by a different person, must play exactly the same way. It's a different player playing them, you'd expect them to not to make the same decisions. To compare to other media: You don't expect Adam West's Batman to act the same way as Christian Bale's Batman.

Which leads to the most common example: A character is taken over is on a temporary basis because the player is absent. In that case, typically the GM or other player does make any critical decisions for them. They fade into the background, so that when the player comes back they don't have to say they wouldn't have done that. Because it's generally recognized that a different player won't make the same decisions, so the character will behave differently. They're not the same if they're filtered through a different player's decision making.

I was trying to point out that my scenario highlights the definitive influence of Metagame, and that your assessment of the scenario agrees with mine. My Goldblum second post was to show my best understanding of Tanarii's view on it, to show how my scenario was splitting the game with the two different views.

In one concerned with Metagaming, it would be more important that the CHARACTER consistently have access to the same level of information from session to session, regardless the PLAYER that happens to be piloting them.

In a game unconcerned with Metagaming, it seems to be more important that the PLAYER not be required to play sub-optimally, even if it means accepting some cognitive dissonance regarding the consistency of the CHARACTER they are playing. This is a natural result of refusing to see the player and character as separate entities, which enhances Immersion while throwing strange quirks into Verisimilitude.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-05, 09:45 AM
Compare with the way comic book characters get mangled when the writer changes, because the new writer has no respect/regard for what came before and considers their vision of the character more important than the established facts and history of the character.

kyoryu
2018-02-05, 12:03 PM
I was trying to point out that my scenario highlights the definitive influence of Metagame, and that your assessment of the scenario agrees with mine. My Goldblum second post was to show my best understanding of Tanarii's view on it, to show how my scenario was splitting the game with the two different views.

In one concerned with Metagaming, it would be more important that the CHARACTER consistently have access to the same level of information from session to session, regardless the PLAYER that happens to be piloting them.

In a game unconcerned with Metagaming, it seems to be more important that the PLAYER not be required to play sub-optimally, even if it means accepting some cognitive dissonance regarding the consistency of the CHARACTER they are playing. This is a natural result of refusing to see the player and character as separate entities, which enhances Immersion while throwing strange quirks into Verisimilitude.

That's a very binary way of looking at it.

The view that I've seen almost universally in my 30+ years of doing this silly thing is viewing the players and characters as separate entities, yet acknowledging that some level of bleed between the two is inevitable. We try to minimize that, but acknowledge that it can't be eliminated.

Now, personally, the majority of the time people get really worried about this it's stupid "trolls are vulnerable to fire" garbage. And that's easily fixed by making the troll encounter interesting even if you know trolls are vulnerable to fire. In other words, it's the troll's unique characteristics that make it a challenge, not trying to figure out the characteristics.


I've never heard of the a group playing as if the same character, played by a different person, must play exactly the same way. It's a different player playing them, you'd expect them to not to make the same decisions. To compare to other media: You don't expect Adam West's Batman to act the same way as Christian Bale's Batman.

But that's generally a reboot of the continuity anyway. Or, to put it a different way, if playing through DragonLance, I expect some continuity with Caramon, even if the player changes (obviously the character will drift over time). However, if a different group starts playing DragonLance, I have no expectations that the character will be the same.

In the case of taking over a character (have I ever seen that?) I'd really expect the new player to try to take over the character as-is, though understanding that the character will change over time.


Which leads to the most common example: A character is taken over is on a temporary basis because the player is absent. In that case, typically the GM or other player does make any critical decisions for them. They fade into the background, so that when the player comes back they don't have to say they wouldn't have done that. Because it's generally recognized that a different player won't make the same decisions, so the character will behave differently. They're not the same if they're filtered through a different player's decision making.

A fantastic example of "characters and players are separate, but we acknowledge bleed and work to minimize it".


Compare with the way comic book characters get mangled when the writer changes, because the new writer has no respect/regard for what came before and considers their vision of the character more important than the established facts and history of the character.

New writers in comics seem to be very much "soft reboots".

Tanarii
2018-02-05, 01:02 PM
Compare with the way comic book characters get mangled when the writer changes, because the new writer has no respect/regard for what came before and considers their vision of the character more important than the established facts and history of the character.That's not mangling. It's a new spin, a new take on the character. It's expected, and a positive, not a negative.


Now, personally, the majority of the time people get really worried about this it's stupid "trolls are vulnerable to fire" garbage. And that's easily fixed by making the troll encounter interesting even if you know trolls are vulnerable to fire. In other words, it's the troll's unique characteristics that make it a challenge, not trying to figure out the characteristics.Exactly. You can either acknowledge that there isn't any actual or real separation between player and PC knowledge, and try to create imaginary separation anyway. Or just embrace it and play appropriately. If the former is a problem, you can either realize you've created the problem and stop, or you can keep trying to create it even when it's negative and scream about it being a "problem"


But that's generally a reboot of the continuity anyway. Or, to put it a different way, if playing through DragonLance, I expect some continuity with Caramon, even if the player changes (obviously the character will drift over time). However, if a different group starts playing DragonLance, I have no expectations that the character will be the same.

In the case of taking over a character (have I ever seen that?) I'd really expect the new player to try to take over the character as-is, though understanding that the character will change over time.Often it's a reboot. We're all especially used to that from Movies. Sometimes it isn't, and the new person coming in does their best to remain true to the imaginary character which was really the original persons creation. Like Brandon Sanderson doing a bang-up job of finishing The Wheel of Time, after working hard with Robert Jordan to make sure he understood everything properly.


A fantastic example of "characters and players are separate, but we acknowledge bleed and work to minimize it".Not at all. That's exactly back to front. It's a classic example of: "Characters aren't separate from the original person, we just pretend they are. So we have to acknowledge that and work to enhance the illusion that they actually exist independently of the original person."

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-05, 01:07 PM
That's not mangling. It's a new spin, a new take on the character. It's expected, and a positive, not a negative.


No, it's usually just a mangling, a fundamental shift in violation of who the character has been established to be as a person, for no other reasons than that the new writer didn't bother to learn anything about the character and/or felt the stories they wanted to tell were the most important thing ever... usually involves retcons.

For example, a group of idiots at Marvel just made Captain America into a Hydra deep-sleeper agent "all along" (and thereby implicitly a Nazi all along).

Or going back a bit, the whole "Peter Parker makes a deal with the devil to save Aunt May that erases his marriage to MJ from reality, because the bloated manchildren who took the series over decided that a married adult Spiderman wasn't the Spiderman they knew and loved".

Pleh
2018-02-05, 01:08 PM
That's a very binary way of looking at it.

Having a binary comparison can be valid without eliminating the potential for gradiant values between. The fact that a room can be light, dark, or measured in exact lumens per square foot proves that both a general binary and a precise gradual scaling can both be true and useful (at different tasks).

I was emphasizing the binary to highlight the principles I saw at play

Tanarii
2018-02-05, 01:21 PM
No, it's usually just a mangling, a fundamental shift in violation of who the character has been established to be as a person, for no other reasons than that the new writer didn't bother to learn anything about the character and/or felt the stories they wanted to tell were the most important thing ever... usually involves retcons.Eh, I was probably too enthusiastic in my take. I recognize it can be jarring if it's supposed to be the same continuity.

But your view is based on "the character has been established to be as a person". And my position is they aren't a real person separate from the original person. Therefore it's expected, and quite often interesting, but usually to different people.

Personally I found Adam West's & Michael Keaton's Batmans campy, and Frank Miller's & Christian Bale's Batmans interesting. Without those different people giving a different take on the imaginary characters I wouldn't have gotten to enjoy experiencing the character at all.

Cluedrew
2018-02-05, 01:40 PM
That's not mangling. It's a new spin, a new take on the character. It's expected, and a positive, not a negative.

No, it's usually just a mangling, a fundamental shift in violation of who the character has been established to be as a person,It can be either really, anywhere from a mangling to a refinement and probably somewhere in between. I know some really bad handlings of it, but I don't think the original Superman was nearly as good as some of the later ones. (The Superman: Birthright portrayal being my favourite currently.)

Exactly. You can either acknowledge that there isn't any actual or real separation between player and PC knowledge, and try to create imaginary separation anyway.OK, I might be simulating the character in my head, but how is playing someone with a completely different set of life experiences, a different methodology to problem solving, different skills, different social situations and different habits not an "actual" separation? I'm not quite sure what you mean by real vs. imaginary separation.

Tanarii
2018-02-05, 01:42 PM
OK, I might be simulating the character in my head, but how is playing someone with a completely different set of life experiences, a different methodology to problem solving, different skills, different social situations and different habits not an "actual" separation? I'm not quite sure what you mean by real vs. imaginary separation.Is the character real, or just the product of you imaging imagining "a completely different set of life experiences, a different methodology to problem solving, different skills, different social situations and different habits"?

If the former, there is actual separation. If the latter, there is not. The "character" is just your interpretation of filtering the so called "different" things through your actual personality. So technically, they aren't different, they're just you doing something you imagine is different.

Cluedrew
2018-02-05, 01:55 PM
But the a innocent apprentice mage is a very different character from a battle hardened berserker. Any I can play them both.

Tanarii
2018-02-05, 02:06 PM
But the a innocent apprentice mage is a very different character from a battle hardened berserker. Any I can play them both.
But they are both expressions of your imagination, filtered through you. If someone else tried to play them, they would be different, because they'd be expressions of their imagination, filtered through them.

they would not be the same character, even if they supposedly were. Because they aren't real outside of the players (or actors, or writers) portrayal of them.

Cosi
2018-02-05, 02:24 PM
No, it's usually just a mangling, a fundamental shift in violation of who the character has been established to be as a person, for no other reasons than that the new writer didn't bother to learn anything about the character and/or felt the stories they wanted to tell were the most important thing ever... usually involves retcons.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how those characters work in culture. Captain America isn't a person. He's a metaphor for America. How exactly that works depends on the person writing for him and what they want to say about America. It's like folk heroes of myths. My telling the story of Robin Hood one way doesn't invalidate other people telling it other ways, or make those ways wrong or bad, or "break the character". Because the character is defined by theme, not personality.

Look at the X-Men. Their whole thing is being a metaphor for marginalized groups. But the specific group they are speaking to changes. Originally, it was a metaphor for the civil rights struggle (hence "Professor X" in reference to "Malcolm X"). More recently, it's become more a metaphor for gay rights (hence "mutant and proud" in one of the movies). That's not "breaking the character", it's evolving a concept.


For example, a group of idiots at Marvel just made Captain America into a Hydra deep-sleeper agent "all along" (and thereby implicitly a Nazi all along).

Or going back a bit, the whole "Peter Parker makes a deal with the devil to save Aunt May that erases his marriage to MJ from reality, because the bloated manchildren who took the series over decided that a married adult Spiderman wasn't the Spiderman they knew and loved".

Those plotlines aren't stupid because they changed the character, they are stupid because they are very stupid.

Cluedrew
2018-02-05, 02:43 PM
But they are both expressions of your imagination, filtered through you. If someone else tried to play them, they would be different, because they'd be expressions of their imagination, filtered through them.

they would not be the same character, even if they supposedly were. Because they aren't real outside of the players (or actors, or writers) portrayal of them.

I think that if both you and I both ran the innocent apprentice mage (at least if we flushed it out a bit more first) it would probably result in to much more similar characters than if either of us ran the innocent apprentice mage an later ran the battle hardened berserker. I don't think that player/author and character are independent, but that doesn't mean they are one and the same either.

I'm trying to not talk about what makes something real or not (because that is a rabbit hole that has no bottom). So instead I will just say this: I have found that viewing characters and players as separate, but connected, entities has helped my role-playing experiences in the past.

To Cosi: (On stupidity)... yup. I don't think either of those stories would have been good with original characters. One More Day (I think that is the name of the Spider-Man one) as it was described to me hinged on an incurable injury that can be cured in real life. Heart transplants work.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-05, 03:17 PM
You're fundamentally misunderstanding how those characters work in culture. Captain America isn't a person. He's a metaphor for America. How exactly that works depends on the person writing for him and what they want to say about America. It's like folk heroes of myths. My telling the story of Robin Hood one way doesn't invalidate other people telling it other ways, or make those ways wrong or bad, or "break the character". Because the character is defined by theme, not personality.

Look at the X-Men. Their whole thing is being a metaphor for marginalized groups. But the specific group they are speaking to changes. Originally, it was a metaphor for the civil rights struggle (hence "Professor X" in reference to "Malcolm X"). More recently, it's become more a metaphor for gay rights (hence "mutant and proud" in one of the movies). That's not "breaking the character", it's evolving a concept.


When looking at fiction (reading a book, watching a show, whatever) I really just don't care at all about characters as "cultural touchstones" or "narrative elements" or "expressions of theme", and as soon as it becomes clear that this is what's going on, I almost always lose most of whatever interest I had in that character.

I don't care at all about theme, or symbolism, or literary metaphor, or whatever. If I'm reading about a character standing in the rain, all I see is a character standing in the rain, and all I care about is whether it makes sense for that character in that moment to stand there instead of trying to get somewhere dry, and nothing else -- the rain isn't a symbol or metaphor for anything. If I'm writing about a character standing in the rain, it's because that character is standing in the rain, and nothing more. It does not symbolize cleansing, or oppression, or whatever it's stylish for rain to "represent" this season.

The writer, or player/GM, either treats the character as a person-who-could-be, or they don't. For a work of fiction, if they don't, I have no reason to care about the character or the story.

Cosi
2018-02-05, 03:41 PM
When looking at fiction (reading a book, watching a show, whatever) I really just don't care at all about characters as "cultural touchstones" or "narrative elements" or "expressions of theme", and as soon as it becomes clear that this is what's going on, I almost always lose most of whatever interest I had in that character.

But that is not how comic-book characters have ever worked. There was never a time when Superman did not represent real political issues. There was never a time when Wonder Woman was not intended to advance a cultural agenda. There was never a time when the X-Men where just dudes fighting stuff. It's fine to say "I want my fiction to be totally divorced from the real world", but if that is in fact your goal, I don't see how you could have begun to like comic books in the first place unless you somehow mistook "politics I like" for "not politics".

CharonsHelper
2018-02-05, 03:49 PM
But that is not how comic-book characters have ever worked. There was never a time when Superman did not represent real political issues. There was never a time when Wonder Woman was not intended to advance a cultural agenda. There was never a time when the X-Men where just dudes fighting stuff. It's fine to say "I want my fiction to be totally divorced from the real world", but if that is in fact your goal, I don't see how you could have begun to like comic books in the first place unless you somehow mistook "politics I like" for "not politics".

I'd argue that there's a difference between a story/characters being about something to being pure symbolism.

If nothing else - the latter is often used as an excuse for shoddy writing and poor internal consistency.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-05, 03:57 PM
But that is not how comic-book characters have ever worked. There was never a time when Superman did not represent real political issues. There was never a time when Wonder Woman was not intended to advance a cultural agenda. There was never a time when the X-Men where just dudes fighting stuff. It's fine to say "I want my fiction to be totally divorced from the real world", but if that is in fact your goal, I don't see how you could have begun to like comic books in the first place unless you somehow mistook "politics I like" for "not politics".


One, I don't want my fiction to be totally divorced from the real world -- I just don't look at characters as symbols or metaphors.

I didn't see any politics because I wasn't looking for politics, I was just looking at what those characters were going through as "fictional people".

kyoryu
2018-02-05, 05:33 PM
Believe me, it was there. X-Men as LGBT standins? From the start.

The difference, really, is that in many cases the older works that are being referenced stood on their own as stories, without needing an understanding of the underlying symbolism to prop them up.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-05, 07:45 PM
Believe me, it was there. X-Men as LGBT standins? From the start.

The difference, really, is that in many cases the older works that are being referenced stood on their own as stories, without needing an understanding of the underlying symbolism to prop them up.


I'm not saying it wasn't there, I've since read about what the creators and writers of those books were getting at.

Just explaining that not seeing it wasn't / isn't because of political leanings -- I just don't look at fiction (or games) that way unless I'm taking several steps back and I'm completely disengaged from the characters and their stories.

Pleh
2018-02-05, 08:16 PM
When talking about characters devoid of symbolism, I see a chicken or egg problem.

Is the character a conscious, deliberate symbol of some idea, or did the author just vomit subconscious inspiration onto the page (which due to rational thought and basic psychology definitely CAN be interpreted as symbolic of something else, if it wasn't even somewhat "intended" by their subconscious)?

Every character that has any kind of believable structure will have meaning, because at the very least they will be at least minimally relatable, thus their story conveys a relatable meaning that can be felt by an audience.

For example, if a person is standing in the rain, it at least tells us that something is overriding the desire most people would feel to avoid getting soaked in cold water. If the context is that we see the character watching blood washing off their hands and see a sense of relief, then yes, the character seems to be representing a cleansing experience.

Everything comprehensible means something. Nothing needs to mean something more than a literal account of events, but good writing will take this parameter of narrative into consideration.

Yes, some writers get ahead of themselves feeling clever and subtle when they're really being trite and ham fisted.

Quertus
2018-02-05, 08:52 PM
But they are both expressions of your imagination, filtered through you. If someone else tried to play them, they would be different, because they'd be expressions of their imagination, filtered through them.

they would not be the same character, even if they supposedly were. Because they aren't real outside of the players (or actors, or writers) portrayal of them.


I think that if both you and I both ran the innocent apprentice mage (at least if we flushed it out a bit more first) it would probably result in to much more similar characters than if either of us ran the innocent apprentice mage an later ran the battle hardened berserker. I don't think that player/author and character are independent, but that doesn't mean they are one and the same either.

I'm trying to not talk about what makes something real or not (because that is a rabbit hole that has no bottom). So instead I will just say this: I have found that viewing characters and players as separate, but connected, entities has helped my role-playing experiences in the past.

One of the best role-playing experiences I've had was with a group that would, in effect, all play each other's characters in their heads, and ask whenever the actual player behaved in a way that they could not reconcile with the image that they had in their head of that character, why the character behaved that way.

Personally, I tend to view myself / the player as an emulator, and the character as a platonic ideal / piece of software. Thus my stated (albeit impossible) goal of 100% accurate roleplay, 100% accurate emulation of the behavior that the character's start conditions would produce given the stimulus presented in the game.


But that is not how comic-book characters have ever worked. There was never a time when Superman did not represent real political issues. There was never a time when Wonder Woman was not intended to advance a cultural agenda. There was never a time when the X-Men where just dudes fighting stuff. It's fine to say "I want my fiction to be totally divorced from the real world", but if that is in fact your goal, I don't see how you could have begun to like comic books in the first place unless you somehow mistook "politics I like" for "not politics".


Believe me, it was there. X-Men as LGBT standins? From the start.

The difference, really, is that in many cases the older works that are being referenced stood on their own as stories, without needing an understanding of the underlying symbolism to prop them up.

Yeah, if it fails at the basic level of "this is a story", I rarely care how awesome it would be as symbolism.

However, there are exceptions. I watched a war movie that had a scene where a politician, in a very out of character moment, attempted to "help" in the infirmary by trying unsuccessfully to wash away the blood. This "WTF?!" moment (broke me out of immersion?), triggered thought, and an "ah, symbolism, gotcha" moment. That made that particular scene memorable for me.

Had the entire movie been that ****, and not worked at the story level, I would have considered the whole thing garbage, rather than appreciating that one aberrant scene.

"Mutant and Proud", otoh, I just found annoying. :smalltongue:

Cosi
2018-02-06, 10:43 AM
If nothing else - the latter is often used as an excuse for shoddy writing and poor internal consistency.

Quite possibly. But lots of things are used to defend bad stories. I think pretty much every argument you can make in favor of a work of fiction has been made by someone somewhere defending some bad work of fiction. I've read good fiction with good symbolism. I've read good fiction with bad symbolism. I've read bad fiction with good symbolism. I've read bad fiction with bad symbolism (well, not very much of it, but still). I frankly think that trying to understand fiction as "just a story" is fundamentally misguided. The stories we tell reflect things about the world we live in and the values we have.


I didn't see any politics because I wasn't looking for politics, I was just looking at what those characters were going through as "fictional people".

Okay, but the works are political works. You can read Wonder Woman comics and not care about the political attitudes of them, but the ground truth is that Wonder Woman was created as an example of a particular political agenda by someone who wanted to promote that agenda. It's silly to complain that people are using comics to tell stories that are symbolically meaningful to them rather than advance the authentic lives of the characters, because that is how comics have always been. It's like complaining that the characters have silly costumes or alliterative names. You can do it, but people aren't going to take you seriously because those things are foundational in what comics do.


Believe me, it was there. X-Men as LGBT standins? From the start.

If we're being technical, I think from the start the X-Men were standins for the civil rights movement, but they have absolutely been used as standins for LGBT rights (unless you're talking about the modern movies, in which case I think you're right that those have been about LGBT people from the word go).

It's kind of weird symbolism, because the power dynamics between the government and a dude who can control metal with his mind are dramatically different from the power dynamics between the government and LGBT people, but it's definitely there.

kyoryu
2018-02-06, 12:21 PM
If we're being technical, I think from the start the X-Men were standins for the civil rights movement, but they have absolutely been used as standins for LGBT rights (unless you're talking about the modern movies, in which case I think you're right that those have been about LGBT people from the word go).

It's kind of weird symbolism, because the power dynamics between the government and a dude who can control metal with his mind are dramatically different from the power dynamics between the government and LGBT people, but it's definitely there.

Except that Magneto isn't a standin for the government. The government is. The interplay between the X-Men and Magneto is something very different.

Cosi
2018-02-06, 02:31 PM
Except that Magneto isn't a standin for the government. The government is. The interplay between the X-Men and Magneto is something very different.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I'm not saying Magneto is the government. I'm saying that civil rights struggles (whether you mean the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, or the women's suffrage movement, or the LGBT rights movement) have a very different power dynamic between the government and the movement than exists between the government in the X-Men and the X-Men (and other mutants).

Pleh
2018-02-06, 05:20 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I'm not saying Magneto is the government. I'm saying that civil rights struggles (whether you mean the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, or the women's suffrage movement, or the LGBT rights movement) have a very different power dynamic between the government and the movement than exists between the government in the X-Men and the X-Men (and other mutants).

I think kyoryu's point was that the relationship between the X-Men and the Fictional Government in the story of the X-Men was a better representation of LGBT relations with the real world government than to say it was the relationship between the X-Men and the Brotherhood.

If anything, the relationship between the X-Men and the Brotherhood was more a representation of the internal conflict in civil rights movements that disagree about exactly how much violence is necessary and/or beneficial to their cause.

Thrudd
2018-02-06, 05:36 PM
The place where the X-Men/civil rights analogy falls apart is that mutants actually have more power than those that are treating them with prejudice. They aren't systematically disadvantaged. They are physically advantaged. They could fairly easily conquer all existing governments and rule the planet if they wanted to. The human societies are not unjustified in their fear of mutants...a mutant with a powerful ability and the will to use it is a legitimate threat to large numbers of people. The only thing that prevents this is the internal conflict between their pacifists and their militants. They are a minority, true- but a minority that has combined power outweighing all human governments put together. There's no real-world analog. Unless it's the fight between factions of billionaire oligarchs who have different philosophies on how to run and participate in society.

Cluedrew
2018-02-07, 08:13 AM
I think we have gone off topic, by at least two degrees.

Or could someone please describe to me how figuring out exactly what and how the X-men are metaphors for helps us refine our understanding of what a role playing game is.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-07, 09:31 AM
I think we have gone off topic, by at least two degrees.

Or could someone please describe to me how figuring out exactly what and how the X-men are metaphors for helps us refine our understanding of what a role playing game is.


Something to do with whether a character should at least be treated as if they exist separate from those portraying them, and the "best" degree of player/character integration.

Pleh
2018-02-07, 09:38 AM
Yes, comparison to related mediums and genres.

When an author for a comic book decides to jump off the character rails to tell a different story.

It's at worst tangentially related to the original subject, since composing a narrative can and often does involve some amount of Role Playing your characters through the scenarios you are setting up. You have to be careful to measure out how much of yourself you allow to dictate character decisions vs allowing the character to make separate decisions from what YOU as the author might have done.

My real problem with new comics trying to reimagine the old characters is often that their only real purpose in betraying all of the original character's motivations is that they are caught in a corner where everything has already been done with the original character, so that character should just simply be retired, but the new variants don't sell as well, so the writers are forced to splice their inspiration for their own characters who can't compete with the classics INTO the classic characters (because they have to tell the same old stories without being allowed to tell EXACTLY the same old stories). It's really terribly messy.

Jay R
2018-02-07, 06:52 PM
My real problem with new comics trying to reimagine the old characters is often that their only real purpose in betraying all of the original character's motivations is that they are caught in a corner where everything has already been done with the original character, so that character should just simply be retired, but the new variants don't sell as well, so the writers are forced to splice their inspiration for their own characters who can't compete with the classics INTO the classic characters (because they have to tell the same old stories without being allowed to tell EXACTLY the same old stories). It's really terribly messy.

Yup. This has been going on for centuries.

Alexander Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, a D'Artagnan story very different from the one he found in Courtilz de Sandras's Memoirs of D'Artagnan, which was itself very different from the life of Charles De Batz, the Comte D'Artagnan. Dumas even added a character (Rochefort) from a completely different Courtilz de Sandras novel.

After several centuries, European romantics added all that extraneous Lancelot/Gwenevere and Tristan/Yseult goo to the straightforward war stories of King Arthur.

Homer made a bunch of changes to the stories of the Trojan War, and Oddysseus's travels home.

Shakespeare changed the story originally called The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet.

Aristotle even said that when you tell a story, you should begin by choosing a known plot (mythos), and then decide which elements of it you are going to use.

The only new aspect is that a long-term serial convinced readers that all versions would be consistent with each other. [They aren't, of course. But people expect them to be.]

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-07, 07:17 PM
Yup. This has been going on for centuries.

Alexander Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, a D'Artagnan story very different from the one he found in Courtilz de Sandras's Memoirs of D'Artagnan, which was itself very different from the life of Charles De Batz, the Comte D'Artagnan. Dumas even added a character (Rochefort) from a completely different Courtilz de Sandras novel.

After several centuries, European romantics added all that extraneous Lancelot/Gwenevere and Tristan/Yseult goo to the straightforward war stories of King Arthur.

Homer made a bunch of changes to the stories of the Trojan War, and Oddysseus's travels home.

Shakespeare changed the story originally called The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet.

Aristotle even said that when you tell a story, you should begin by choosing a known plot (mythos), and then decide which elements of it you are going to use.

The only new aspect is that a long-term serial convinced readers that all versions would be consistent with each other. [They aren't, of course. But people expect them to be.]

I'd say the differences are that those are gaps of many many years between separate books, and that unlike what is often the case with those separate books as retellings or stand-alone tellings, the comics in many cases are supposedly -- as in presented and marketed as -- direct continuations of the same story with the same versions of the same characters.

When a new character takes up the same "mask", or a new series is started that's distinctly in a "new universe", then there's less of a "butchering the established character" problem.

Arbane
2018-02-08, 12:38 AM
Of course, sometimes making the description of RPGs harder to understand can work to your benefit.

https://i.imgur.com/0yGiiwi.jpg