Having a connection to a character

[A_Man]

So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

So, Im posing the question for those in this site since, from what I've seen, you all are albero give interesting incites for the other questions ive asked.

So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

[Lorsa]

So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

So, Im posing the question for those in this site since, from what I've seen, you all are albero give interesting incites for the other questions ive asked.

So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

Can you define what sort of emotional connection you mean? Emotional connection as in you care about the character is one thing and emotional connection as in you feel what the character feels is another.

It is obviously a matter of taste but personally I prefer both types.

[Mastikator]

IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.
If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.
It also makes the character unrealistic since the character won't have any real agenda other than to keep playing the game, there will be no concerns for retirement which ought to be on the character's mind.
IMO a character should be so well developed that if given to two different competent players they will both roleplay the same character, this is not the case if you're emotionally invested. I don't think a player should treat his character differently than how a GM treats the NPCs (other than the fact that a player invests more time and effort into their PC, but that's only because the PCs are more important to the story).
I also think that a player shouldn't be adversarial to the concept that they are living by the sword and how that always ends up, they should never metagame to survive.

[Airk]

IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.
If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.

Simply put, this is false. Or at least, correct only a small percentage of the time. Yes, it's possible to have a "my guy" connection to the character, where you become attached to them as a 'version of yourself' and that's bad, but that's only one of the many ways you can form an emotional attachment to a character.

It also makes the character unrealistic since the character won't have any real agenda other than to keep playing the game, there will be no concerns for retirement which ought to be on the character's mind.

Again, this is false or, rather, correct only for one out of many types of 'attachment'.

IMO a character should be so well developed that if given to two different competent players they will both roleplay the same character, this is not the case if you're emotionally invested.

This is a fascinating view, but it makes the character seem rather like a straight jacket to me.

I also think that a player shouldn't be adversarial to the concept that they are living by the sword and how that always ends up, they should never metagame to survive.

Wow. This is such a...limited view of the situation. First of all, the idea that all characters are "living by the sword" says something about the types of roleplaying you are imagining - this is the general roleplaying forum, not the D&D 4E forum or something. There are lots of types of games.

Some players' emotional 'attachment' (I think a better word is emotional 'investment') in their character can be in the pathos - a character who constantly strive but never truly achieves their goals. Another person's emotional attachment might be taking joy in accomplishment, but it's entirely possible to have this sort of attachment without being meta-concerned about death.

Examine this for ideas about different ways to approach your job as a player, and you can see that there are lots of ways one could have 'investment' without the paranoia you seem to associate with this sort of thing.

[Remmirath]

It really depends on what is meant by an emotional connection. I find that if I do not have some sort of small attachment to my characters, I will tend to flip around to the other side and actively dislike them and work against them to get them killed. That might just be me, though.

I don't generally get much attached to them unless I've been playing them for at least a year, though; characters that I'd be rather upset about dying have all been in play for three years or more at this point, and even then, I wouldn't keep them from their deaths -- I've had many characters that I was quite fond of die, and I only hope for them to die in a fitting fashion and leave some mark before they go. If they don't, that's how it is. Having a connection such that you'll be upset anytime anything bad happens to the character is likely to cause frequent upset to you, but is not necessarily completely a bad thing if you're okay with that. I'd tend to recommend against it, however.

A connection in the sense of having a very good handle on their personality, what they are feeling, and what makes them tick is a good thing. That way you can play them better. If I don't have that sort of connection, that's when I begin to actively hope for the character's death.

Basically, I suppose, I think that ideally a player would have the same sort of connection to the character as an author would to a character in a story they're writing or an actor would to a role they're performing. Liking the character, or at least liking to play them, is I think also important; why play a character you don't like playing?

Failure to seperate yourself from the character is another matter entirely, and as far as I can tell completely unrelated to connecting to the character or liking them. One can easily have a character that they're extremely fond of but still seperate themself entirely from them, and also not use player knowledge to same them from certain death. I've seen it happen many times, and had it happen to me. I've also seen people use player knowledge all over the place for characters they don't care about at all. Quite a different thing.

[A_Man]

Can you define what sort of emotional connection you mean? Emotional connection as in you care about the character is one thing and emotional connection as in you feel what the character feels is another.

It is obviously a matter of taste but personally I prefer both types.

Sorry, yeah I meant it as caring about the character.

[Pex]

Emotional attachment to a character is the same as the attachment you place to a character in a book, tv show, or movie. If you don't care about the characters you stop reading the book, stop watching the show, or never see the movie again if not outright walk out of the theater.

This is parcel to why role playing games are different than board and card games. There's nothing to be emotional about with a meeple or the 4 of hearts.

[Lorsa]

Sorry, yeah I meant it as caring about the character.

Alright. Well, if I didn't care about the character I wouldn't have very fun. It's like not caring about... whatever you do really. Without that emotional investment things simply isn't fun for me. If I don't care about the character I might as well run into an evil dragon head first and if I fail *shrug* why care? It was just a character that meant nothing to me.

So, for me, caring about the character is absolutely necessary for enjoyable play.

[The Fury]

So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

Emotional connection will lead to the character not being played correctly? Could you elaborate, please? I realize that you didn't make this argument but you probably understand it better than me.

So, Im posing the question for those in this site since, from what I've seen, you all are albero give interesting incites for the other questionr
So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

Giving a proper response, no. No, it's not inherently wrong to have an emotional connection/investment/whatever with your character. With that said, I'll admit that in some groups doing that can be disruptive. Some players, and DMs too, think of RPGs as collaborative storytelling-- others think of them as battle simulators. Those that lean more towards the latter tend to think developing a character's story, thoughts and feelings as superfluous, I guess. Also, I suppose it's true that people that are emotionally attached to their characters tend to get more upset when they die.

Having said all that, I'd say that having some connection to your character is a good thing. When you come up with a well-rounded character it's a very
human response to empathize and get emotionally invested, in my opinion good fiction needs this kind of investment.

[Kalmageddon]

I think you should care enough about your character in order to actually care about what happens to it and roleplay consequently. If that's an emotional connection or not I don't know, but otherwise I don't see much "connection" being possibile with something that doesn't exist.

[A_Man]

Emotional connection will lead to the character not being played correctly? Could you elaborate, please? I realize that you didn't make this argument but you probably understand it better than me.

I'll just copy and paste his words, since, I can't give a real explanation since I thought he was talking about metagaming, which he argued he was not.

If you're attached to your characters, it is harder for you to play them as they are meant to be played. It is a bad thing to do as it will negatively affect your future playing with that character.

[Frozen_Feet]

Certain sense of detachement is vital in most sorts of RPGs, just as it's vital in many other games and contact sports.

For example, in martial arts practice, you will be kicked, punched, thrown, choked etc. Sometimes you can't, or aren't supposed to, do anything in retaliation so the other guy can practice. While sparring, you will sometimes lose while trying to stick to whatever rules of engagement. And yes, there will also be times when it would be easy to "win" instead by breaking or going outside of said rules. But doing so is bad form, and bad sportsmanship. So instead, you stick to rules, stick to the technique you are trying to practice, and don't get emotionally invested.

Of course, that's not the same as utterly not caring what happens to you. Within the rules, you are still trying to defend yourself, or to score points, or whatever. You just check your ego at the door, because it's not a real fight, and you're not in real danger. Because you don't really die if you lose, you also don't treat loss with same sort of severity.

A lot of people here will see the words "winning" and "losing" and jump out to say "but RPGs are co-operative games!" One, that is not true of all RPGs; and two, just because there aren't supposed to be win and lose conditions, doesn't prevent your mind from conjuring ones up.

The most pertinent "win condition" that crops up is that "everyone must have fun!". But this seemingly reasonable guideline is often stretched to the point of fallacy when people ignore that your fun is partly also your responsibility. It is your ability to stay detached, to shrug off pain or tragedy, to not get offended, that directly feed into your ability to have fun within confines of a game or sport.

And let's face it: many RPGs include several loss conditions such as death of characters as consequences of simply random variables, such as dice rolls. What's the point in getting angry at a random number generator, I ask? If you can't deal with such things, keep dice off the table.

tl;dr: It's perfectly reasonable to care for a character and do everything within the rules of a game to keep them alive; but if they get screwed by the very same rules, shrug it off. It's a game, and your character is a piece of paper.

[1337 b4k4]

Here's how I look at it. If you find yourself making the decisions that are the in the best interests of your character rather than the best decisions that are in character, you have a bad emotional connection to your character. If you play a Sturm Brightblade and you don't put your character on the wall because they would almost certainly die, then you're badly invested in your character. If you choose a throw caution to the wind character who suddenly decides outside the dragon's den that she's suddenly interested in tactics and planning, you're too emotionally invested. Basically, if your character were to have some negative event happen that was perfectly fair within the rules of the world (whether by random die roll, or any other mechanic) and you would be upset enough to argue against it even though it's a perfectly fair outcome, you're too invested.

The best authors will tell you that they're emotionally attached to their characters, but that after a while the characters write their own story. So it is with RPG characters.

[mucat]

Emotional attachment to a character is the same as the attachment you place to a character in a book, tv show, or movie. If you don't care about the characters you stop reading the book, stop watching the show, or never see the movie again if not outright walk out of the theater.

Exactly. Any story, including an RPG, only works when you're emotionally invested in the characters. As Dorothy Heydt said, the Eight Deadly Words for a work of fiction are "I don't care what happens to these people."

I can't imagine bothering to play an RPG if I don't care about the characters (not only mine, but the other PCs as well, and the major NPCs. In some cases, "care about" can mean "frikkin' hate", of course...)

IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.
If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.

That specific sort of emotional reaction would be unhealthy, sure...but again, you could say the same of any sort of fiction. (Misery, anyone?)

Sometimes the story is about watching characters you care about spiral into tragedy. King Lear would not become a better story if we said "let's change the ending so all the good guys are alive and happy." But it would be a pointless story if the audience were to say "Bad things are going to happen to these characters, so let's not give a **** about any of them."

[TheThan]

There’s a lot of ways to role-play.

I mean, we’re playing make-believe with dice, there’s no reason why you can’t have a self insert as a players (dms no, that’s a slippery slope). So you could act out your fantasy of being that beefed-up loincloth clad barbarian, while in reality you’re actually a 98lb weakling. You know what, that’s fine.

However, some people like to create a character that’s not a self insert. They want to create an entire fictional person that’s not based on their own personality or private fantasy. They want to act, and play a role. You know what, that’s fine.

Some people just play their stats, and treat their character as if it was a blank-slate video game character. They’re more interested in roll-playing, not role playing. You know what, that’s fine too.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s not really any right or wrong way to rp characters. As long as you’re not being disruptive, and nobody is offended, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t form a connection with the character your playing.

[Slipperychicken]

Sorry, yeah I meant it as caring about the character.

I think it's reasonable. Just don't do anything stupid like jumping off a bridge when your character dies.

[A_Man]

I think it's reasonable. Just don't do anything stupid like jumping off a bridge when your character dies.

XD

I think we had a situation somewhat like that before.... Everything ended well, and the player is doing well, I think (he hasn't be on ever since his computer broke down), but yeah, as a site we've learnt to not become our characters. (may be TMI though.... XD)

[Lorsa]

IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.

It is basically the same benefit you get from watching a game of football when you want one of the teams to win as opposed to one where you simply don't care either way. The emotional investment increases tension, and tension leads to more adrenaline and adrenaline is usually quite enjoyable.

I would actually argue the opposite; I see no benefit in NOT being emotionally invested.

If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.

No. There is nothing about caring for your character that would lead to you taking everything in the game personally. That's simply being immature and has nothing to do with the emotional investment.

Furthermore, I would argue that it is much easier to use your character's emotions as guidelines for your actions if you DO have an emotional connection to [insert gender neutral pronoun here]. How can you react with a character's emotions if you're not connected to them? That seems contradictory to me.

It also makes the character unrealistic since the character won't have any real agenda other than to keep playing the game, there will be no concerns for retirement which ought to be on the character's mind.

I am confused. How did you get from emotional connection to there being no real agenda for the character? Isn't it actually easier to form an agenda for a character that you DO care about and is emotionally connected to? Otherwise, where do you get the incentive to do anything at all? And if you don't care about the character, isn't it actually MORE likely that your characters agenda will simply be based on... well other things than the actual character? I woulld say that having an emotional investment and connection is a necessary condition for any sort of character agenda.

IMO a character should be so well developed that if given to two different competent players they will both roleplay the same character, this is not the case if you're emotionally invested.

That will never ever ever ever happen. It simply isn't possible to write down a personality so complete, with all possible scenarios that could happen and the character's reactions to them that two people would play exactly the same way. Thinking it is true is just deluding yourself, and again it has nothing at all to do with emotional investment.

I don't think a player should treat his character differently than how a GM treats the NPCs (other than the fact that a player invests more time and effort into their PC, but that's only because the PCs are more important to the story).

I think there's a distinct difference between NPCs and PCs. They should be treated differently. You even said why (PCs should ideally be more important to the story, or rather, the story is about the PCs).

I also think that a player shouldn't be adversarial to the concept that they are living by the sword and how that always ends up, they should never metagame to survive.

Always? While it is certainly a possibility that a PC might die, it's not a necessity. Metagaming to survive has nothing to do with caring about characters or being connected to their emotions. Or do you have any proof that says otherwise?

--lots of stuff--

tl;dr: It's perfectly reasonable to care for a character and do everything within the rules of a game to keep them alive; but if they get screwed by the very same rules, shrug it off. It's a game, and your character is a piece of paper.

I'm sorry, but I've been waiting a long time to do this.

Basically what you're saying is "if, by whiskey"?

If by caring about a character you mean X then it's good, but if you mean Y then it's bad. What sort of argument is that?

There’s a lot of ways to role-play.

I mean, we’re playing make-believe with dice, there’s no reason why you can’t have a self insert as a players (dms no, that’s a slippery slope). So you could act out your fantasy of being that beefed-up loincloth clad barbarian, while in reality you’re actually a 98lb weakling. You know what, that’s fine.

However, some people like to create a character that’s not a self insert. They want to create an entire fictional person that’s not based on their own personality or private fantasy. They want to act, and play a role. You know what, that’s fine.

Some people just play their stats, and treat their character as if it was a blank-slate video game character. They’re more interested in roll-playing, not role playing. You know what, that’s fine too.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s not really any right or wrong way to rp characters. As long as you’re not being disruptive, and nobody is offended, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t form a connection with the character your playing.

Indeed you are correct. There are many ways to roleplay.

But what do these ways have to do with emotional connection and caring about the character? Either of these ways could have any sort of emotional investment I would say.


EDIT: Wow, I guess I was feeling particularly argumentative today. Too little roleplaying this weekend, it gets on my nerves!

[Frozen_Feet]

If by caring about a character you mean X then it's good, but if you mean Y then it's bad. What sort of argument is that?

No, it's about what caring for your character makes you do. It's okay to care for a character, and do what you can within the rules to win; but if you lose by those same rules, you accept your loss. Because it's a game, not your life and death. Getting upset, cheating and complaining about the rules all fall into a set of being a sore loser, and no-one likes those.

[Lorsa]

No, it's about what caring for your character makes you do. It's okay to care for a character, and do what you can within the rules to win; but if you lose by those same rules, you accept your loss. Because it's a game, not your life and death. Getting upset, cheating and complaining about the rules all fall into a set of being a sore loser, and no-one likes those.

Aye, that's true. Basically it boils down to "don't be immature" I think.

[TheThan]

Well ok. There’s a certain point when you have to sit back and realize that it’s a game of make-believe, and that you shouldn’t get too attached to your characters, since they’re not real. If someone is having problems separating their fantasy from reality, maybe they shouldn’t play RPGs at all. Losing a character shouldn’t be a life alternating event

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't think separating fantasy and reality is the problem. In fact, I'd say roleplayers in general are better at separating the two from each other. It's just that things we know to be unreal can still cause real emotions. It requires a degree of skill and proper attitude, which I would call either humility or sportmanship, to keep those emotions from influencing your actions.

[jedipotter]

So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

It sure is better to have a connection then not have one. And while ''it is just a GAME'' is one way to play, it is a way I don't like. The whole ''oh my character, fighter 437, goes into the room full of acid'' or ''my guy does not eat and sleeps in a rain water barrel.''

Though the other side is bad too ''My Awesome character is a work of art and 73 pages long.....so I avoid the goblin with the sharp stick, I don't want to risk death."

[Kane0]

I like to have a connection to/with my character, it gives them that little bit more life to me.

[The Fury]

I'll just copy and paste his words, since, I can't give a real explanation since I thought he was talking about metagaming, which he argued he was not.

OK then. His argument still doesn't make much sense to me, but thanks for filling me in anyway.

Aye, that's true. Basically it boils down to "don't be immature" I think.

Good advice for any pastime, I reckon.

[Elkreeal]

I think one should passionately interpret and act out his character's personality while compromising enough not to be over the top or obnoxious or pass any limit,.

Without any connection to a character at best the only thing anyone would feel would be anger if they start losing or do something with miserable outcome and try to save their asses (in accordance with what I've seen). If a player doesn't try to picture his character as something "living" and not a joke or something just for fun they won't be able to have as much fun nor will they play the character as correctly as someone that is attached to his character.

Here's my bottom line: I think that anyone that plays a character he doesn't get attached too is because they're not making characters they like or they're missing the point entirely.

[ReaderAt2046]

I'd just like to add that I had a connection to one of my characters, and I was ecstatic when he died, because he died in a far more heroic fashion than I had dared to hope for. So an emotional connection doesn't necessarily mean that you want the character to survive at all costs.

[Jack of Spades]

Care about your character exactly as much as you need to in order to maintain fun/interest in the face of adversity. Find the spot where you'll mourn the loss of a character (or the failure of an important goal) but not pout about it. Stay in a place where you can understand and act on the character's negative emotions without feeling them yourself.

Generally, the right spot is just about exactly the level of connection you feel toward your favorite characters on a TV show.

It's been mentioned above that RPG's are basically random number generators. If you're a very competitive person, that randomness may make things difficult for you, as a good GM should be making sure you don't win every fight.

Basically, it's all about learning to lose gracefully. If you can do that out of character, go along your merry way with whatever level of connection you'd like.

Edit for some context:
I game with an increasingly large pool of people. There are groups that make their characters serious, full people. There are groups that make every character a walking joke. But in both kinds of group, most people are able to play their characters pretty well and entertainingly because they're maintaining right around the TV-show level of connection.

Get too attached, and you'll let negative emotion seep out of the character in a disruptive way.

Get too detached, and you'll fail to catch the character's positive emotion and the game will cease to be fulfilling/fun/engaging.

[Kitten Champion]

I should connect to my characters more, I think.

So, basically, I have commitment issues. I fall madly in love with a character concept, I get really antsy to RP it, then I finally get to and after about 4-5 sessions in I've already started cogitating on my next character concept unconsciously. After inspiration strikes and my new splendorous character is in my life, I kind of awkwardly go through the motions with my ex until the relationship ends and I'm free to move on. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Frozen_Feet]

Aye, that's true. Basically it boils down to "don't be immature" I think.

I don't really like using terms like "mature" or "immature". I had some trouble explaining why, but a recent other thread reminded me of the reason:

What people call "maturity" is a grab-bag of traits that often have little to do with each other. And a lot of those traits are far more important than others.

For example, it's much more important to have humility and good sportmanship, than to have supposedly "mature" sense of humor or interests, because the former actively prevents trouble caused by the latter (at least, when rest of the group share the trait). To contrast this, a person with a "mature" (read: no) sense of humor and bad sportmanship is absolutely the worst kind of spoilsport.

There are reasons why we associate whiny egoism with immaturity, and it is true it often goes alon with immature sense of humour, but it's not automation. Same goes for other immature traits. I can deal with a naive person who tells **** jokes, as long as he or she remembers it's a game and has a positive attitude towards it. It's hell dealing with adults who make mountains out of molehills.