Quote from: John MorrowWhat do you mean by "part of you"?

Well, I thought it was an easy question, but on reflection I suppose it's actually deep philosophy.

What I'm asking is where you choose to draw the borders of your identity.  I can say "This hand is part of me, but this jacket is not."  Similarly, I can (and do) say "This kindness is part of me, and much as I rebel against it this fatalism is part of me as well.  I don't like the fatalism, but it's not like a jacket.  No matter the outside circumstances that fostered it, the emotion itself had its seed in my mind, and however large it's grown it has done that because of the fertile ground I've given it.  It is a part of who I am."

Personally, I draw the borders of my identity to include everything that happens inside of my own head.  Yes, I too have secondary fictional personae that can function independently of my day-to-day persona, but all of those are part of the greater whole that is Me.

So when you ask "Hey, when you're deep into playing Roland, or Zach, or Yoshi, are you acting on your wants and desires as a player?" I know that the answer is yes.  Yeah, those characters do things that surprise the parts of me in charge of driving out to pick up the groceries, but that's not me being surprised by the Other.  That's me being surprised by myself.

But, yeah ... if you want to bring that identity-line inside of your own head and cordon off parts of the process of your brain as being "Other than you," then I suppose that the Player definition as it's proposed would be useful to you.

It sure isn't any use to me, though.  D'you see why?

Quote from: John MorrowADDED:  FYI, I often don't get a full feel for the character until a few sessions into a campaign.  This is why you'll find the "DAS" (Develop At Start) and "DIP" (Develop In Play) names in the r.g.f.a FAQ as a distinction.  A lot of people who play deeply in character need a few sessions to really flesh out the character because during that time, they are building the internal character model that they think in.

I think this applies whether it's develop in play or in-game. FOr the Outbackalypse campaign, I played myself as a character, beginning a little bit competent (as an adventurer) but not very well-motivated to go adventuring, and even though playing myself, it took several sessions to get a handle on the character. That is because real people exist not in a cell by themselves, but in relationship to people and events around them. So, me living a nice peaceful life today is not the same as me surviving through a global collapse and horrible violence. The character develops and changes in response to events; so even if you do create the entire character to begin with, they'll change a lot in play.

That's the problem with all these sorts of attempts to categorise things, real gaming just isn't as clear-cut as that.

Quote from: TonyLBPersonally, I draw the borders of my identity to include everything that happens inside of my own head.  Yes, I too have secondary fictional personae that can function independently of my day-to-day persona, but all of those are part of the greater whole that is Me.

Again, I go back to my question about multiple personality disorders.  Do you believe that a person who has different named personalities are all just one personality with different personae or do you think they are distinct personalities that aren't a part of each other?

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you ask "Hey, when you're deep into playing Roland, or Zach, or Yoshi, are you acting on your wants and desires as a player?" I know that the answer is yes.  Yeah, those characters do things that surprise the parts of me in charge of driving out to pick up the groceries, but that's not me being surprised by the Other.  That's me being surprised by myself.

My characters think things that I wouldn't think and even do things for their own subconscious reasons.  They don't surprise me because I see it as a part of me thinking a certain way.  They surprise me the way another person would surprise me.  Yeah, it's inside my head but it's quite independent of me, John, the player.  It has the proverbial "life of it's own".

Quote from: TonyLBBut, yeah ... if you want to bring that identity-line inside of your own head and cordon off parts of the process of your brain as being "Other than you," then I suppose that the Player definition as it's proposed would be useful to you.

Yes.  The difference between what I'm thinking as Player and what I'm thinking In Character is very distinct to me.  And where I've nudged my characters to behave certain ways, it was very much the Player manipulating the Character and in order to do so successfully, I had to evaluate where to push the character without breaking it.  

Quote from: TonyLBIt sure isn't any use to me, though.  D'you see why?

Yes.  And as such, I'm not sure this whole branch of theory is going to be of much use to you.  It doesn't sound like you really take distinct stances.

That's similar to my feeling about all the hoops people seem to need to jump through to create intense conflicts in Narrativist games.  All of that drama about my anti-elf PC was in a fairly vanilla D&D game that offered no special mechanics to support that sort of drama.  It's just something I have no trouble doing naturally and just flows from having a character engaging the setting like a real place for me.

Quote from: John MorrowI can say that its wants and knowledge are not always a part of me, to the extent that they are not always accessible to me except in the way that a patient's wants and knowledge are accessible to a psychologist that probes them.  I've had character feel emotions and do things that I didn't understand until I tossed the character on the proverbial couch and psychoanalyzed them.  I often can't just access their thoughts and memories directly and know what's going on.

I just wanted to point out that this is no different from the experience of a real person going "on the couch," in the sense that the person often doesn't themselves understand their feelings and actions until they talk it out with the therapist, buddy, spouse, pastor, whatever. A real person experiencing the paranoia of the memory-wiped guy would probably not understand why he was feeling that way any more than you understood why the fictional guy was.

We often surprise ourselves--"wow, I never knew I had it in me." When we screw up or lose our temper, it's rarely because we "mean" to or want to, opr understand why onan analytical level. And certainly great acts of bravery are often not understood until afterward. In a situation of crisis, you act, then ponder.

When Tony talks about "surprising himself" when being surprised by his character. . .he could just as easily express surprise at something he had done out in the "real world," I'm sure. And yes, authors talk of characters surprising them and taking a life of their own, but in a literal, physical sense, it's still the author's thoughts making up things about your character.

I can't be in your head or know how you experience things. So if you insist that it's this or that way, I've gotta take your word for it. But from the outside at least, I see no basis for believing that the "thoughts" of the character don't originate from you.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: John MorrowYes.  And as such, I'm not sure this whole branch of theory is going to be of much use to you.  It doesn't sound like you really take distinct stances.

Well now, be fair.  I am advocating for changing the phrasing of the definition in such a way that we can both get some use out of it.  It seems a little facile for you to just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well, if you think like that then clearly terms like this can never have any value for you."  They can have value for me, and I'd like them to.

If we add the bolded words, so that we define Player mode as:     "You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on conscious recognition of what you as a player know/want. The actual motivation (win the game, solve the puzzle, tell the story) is not important, only that you consciously use your motivations as part of the decision," ... then that's a term that I can apply importantly to people I play with.  "Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

Quote from: TonyLBWell now, be fair.  I am advocating for changing the phrasing of the definition in such a way that we can both get some use out of it.  It seems a little facile for you to just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well, if you think like that then clearly terms like this can never have any value for you."  They can have value for me, and I'd like them to.

If we add the bolded words, so that we define Player mode as:     "You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on conscious recognition of what you as a player know/want. The actual motivation (win the game, solve the puzzle, tell the story) is not important, only that you consciously use your motivations as part of the decision," ... then that's a term that I can apply importantly to people I play with.  "Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

And you do realize I've been agreeing with that addition.  I may not agree with all of your examples - and we may need to delve a little to expound - but I like the addition of conscious for the reasons we've discussed; that is, so people who even deep IC don't separate themselves so fully, can still be considered IC.

The whole idea was to simply draw the line at the intention of using IC knowledge ony when deciding, either as your character or for your character, what to do/say next.

And as someone pointed out (I think James M.) either in this thread or the other, it's very much the IC/OOC distinction. The only problem I have with that verbiage is the "out-of-character" seems to limit you to being...well...out of character.  Whereas Player allows for a decision to include both IC and OOC motivations.

Are we drawing a line?

I think that any combination of these is possible:  I've observed them all.  I've seen people playing the game not-Character/not-Player.  I've seen people playing the game Character/not-Player, and not-Character/Player and Character/Player.

Quote from: TonyLBAre we drawing a line?

I think that any combination of these is possible:  I've observed them all.  I've seen people playing the game not-Character/not-Player.  I've seen people playing the game Character/not-Player, and not-Character/Player and Character/Player.

Not draw a line as in the two are mutually exclusive.  I think I said Player is actually a superset of Character, or something like that.

Simply to distinguish two aspects.  I mean, otherwise, why ask the original question at all.  Or are you really trying to find characteristics that will lead to two stances that will be mutually exclusive?  If you are, I think you will be at it a long time...no offense....

Quote from: TonyLBWell now, be fair.  I am advocating for changing the phrasing of the definition in such a way that we can both get some use out of it.  It seems a little facile for you to just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well, if you think like that then clearly terms like this can never have any value for you."  They can have value for me, and I'd like them to.

If you want to keep working with it, by all means do.  I'm simply saying that it's possible that if you don't split things up into distinct stances, a model that deals with distinct stances might not work for you, at least in terms of figuring out where a decision comes from.  I think you've pretty much said the same thing yourself, so I'm a bit confused why my statement bothered you, especially since it was phrased with a "not sure".

Quote from: TonyLBIf we add the bolded words, so that we define Player mode as:     "You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on conscious recognition of what you as a player know/want. The actual motivation (win the game, solve the puzzle, tell the story) is not important, only that you consciously use your motivations as part of the decision," ... then that's a term that I can apply importantly to people I play with.  "Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

That's cool, but I'm not sure the rewording is necessary to make that distinction.

Quote from: TonyLB"Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

By the way, if you think it's cool for the player to slip out of Player mode, what mode do they go into?  And if that switch is cool, is the switch back not cool?  (Or is it cool either way?)

Quote from: MelinglorI just wanted to point out that this is no different from the experience of a real person going "on the couch," in the sense that the person often doesn't themselves understand their feelings and actions until they talk it out with the therapist, buddy, spouse, pastor, whatever. A real person experiencing the paranoia of the memory-wiped guy would probably not understand why he was feeling that way any more than you understood why the fictional guy was.

No, not really.  Why?  Because the reason the character freaked out was that he lacked the memories to make sense of what was going on.  As the player, I eventually understood what was happening because I did have access to the memories the character no longer had and was able to contrast the character with and without the memories.  That's not something the character could do if they were really put on a couch, unless the therapist knew what the erased memories contained.

I know what you are trying to say here but the answer to the problem was found within the character, not inside of me.

Quote from: MelinglorWe often surprise ourselves--"wow, I never knew I had it in me." When we screw up or lose our temper, it's rarely because we "mean" to or want to, opr understand why onan analytical level. And certainly great acts of bravery are often not understood until afterward. In a situation of crisis, you act, then ponder.

I've had that experience.  It's not the same thing.  In fact, I experience such surprises different as player and in character -- sometimes at the same time.  Things that surprise one don't always surprise the other.  When the character went paranoid, it wasn't a surprise to the character.  It made perfect sense in character.  It was a surprise to the player.

Quote from: MelinglorWhen Tony talks about "surprising himself" when being surprised by his character. . .he could just as easily express surprise at something he had done out in the "real world," I'm sure. And yes, authors talk of characters surprising them and taking a life of their own, but in a literal, physical sense, it's still the author's thoughts making up things about your character.

Have you ever had the experience yourself?  

You experience the world around you and react to it.  There is no "making up things about Melinglor" in that process.   My characters experience the world around them and react to it.  There is no "making up things about my character" in that process unless I impose it on the process on purpose.  

Quote from: MelinglorI can't be in your head or know how you experience things. So if you insist that it's this or that way, I've gotta take your word for it. But from the outside at least, I see no basis for believing that the "thoughts" of the character don't originate from you.

Do you believe that multiple personality disorders are real and that people can actually have multiple distinct personalities, with their own memories, emotions, and ways of reacting to situations, within a single mind?  Or do you think it's all just them an the personalities are just an illusion?  Do you believe that schizophrenic people and people suffering from other insanities actually hear voices in their heads as if people were speaking to them?  

If you find it possible to believe, assuming that you do, that it's possible for the mind of a crazy person to contain multiple distinct personalities and/or distinct voices that are not part of their primary consciousness, then I have to ask why you think it's impossible that a sane person might leverage the capacity of the human mind to have more than one mindspace and more than one voice to play a character in character with a consciousness that is really distinct from the player's?  In other words, crazy people have the ability to create distinct personalities in little compartments in their brain.  Why do you believe a sane person can't do that?

So the basis for believing that the "thoughts" of the character are distinct from the "thoughts" of the player is that there are plenty of mental disorders that make it quite clear that the human brain has the capacity to maintain distinct personalities and consciousnesses in isolation from each other and I claim you don't have to be insane to leverage those capabilities to play a character.

Hi, John!

Ok, the memory-wipe guy may be a bad example because it's hard to imagine a situation like that coming up in real life. But surely this kind of thing does happen in real life, for more mundane reasons? I've certainly dealt with inner emotional processes where I was experiencing bery negative feelings toward someone, or being really erdgy and snappish in a situation, and didn't understand why until I sat down and dissected it later. That's the similarity I was trying to draw on.

When you say the answer lies within the character, not within you, that makes the discussion difficult because the very subject of debate is whether the character is "within you" or something separate.

As far as multiple personalities and schizophrenia and the like, I really don't know. It's outside my experience and I've not researched the issue. So I really couldn't venture to say how "real" the other personalities are, but in one sense I'm not sure that it matters much. That is, whether they're real or just an illusion, it's still all happenig within the person's head, and all originates from that person's psyche, barring something like demonic possession where there's literally another entity dwelling in your head. I'm reminded of the comics character Legion, who's a psychic with multiple personalities, most of which he made up, but one of which is a Palestinian terrorist whose psyche he absorbed. As such, the Palestinian is 'real" and distinct, in a way that the other two are not.

So any multiple personality-type phenomena that occur in your brain, whether the result of mental illness or of "leveraging" your mind to create under controlled conditions, is still part of you, and originates from you, which is what I believe Tony's getting at.

I'm just an interloper, though--merely thought I had an observation that might help clarify things. If it doesn't work for you, no problem; I don't want to siphon your mental energy from the debate at hand.

Peace,
-Joel

Hi!
  I am not sure where it will end up eventually, but where it started did not have to do with voice in literature or meta-game info. It had to do with narrative license.
Actor - No narrative license, the payers control stops where the character's control stops. He can make a char say something or try and do something, but that's where the narrative control ends.
Author - Some narrative license, the player feels like they have some control over the direction and quality of the story being told, but not enough to add anything that is not already established previously.
Director - Lots of narrative license, the player feels like they can add bits and details to the story, environment and their character as needed by what they feel the current story needs.

Example:
Setup:
You are Grognar the Barbarian, you enter a tavern, you see a big rough guy arm wrestling for wagers, a barkeep, a bard telling stories and a mysterious stranger, what do you do?

Actor
  Grognard is a rough and tumble warrior, so he is only going to drink or arm wrestle. even though the player suspects the mysterious stranger is going to be a cool plot hook. But Grognard would never do that...

Author
  Grognard may be a rough and tumble warrior, but no sense wasting time when this mysterious stranger is clearly the way to go...

Director
  Grognard is horny, we'll add a comely barmaid to the scene to spice it up!

  At least that is how I understand it.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you find it possible to believe, assuming that you do, that it's possible for the mind of a crazy person to contain multiple distinct personalities and/or distinct voices that are not part of their primary consciousness, then I have to ask why you think it's impossible that a sane person might leverage the capacity of the human mind to have more than one mindspace and more than one voice to play a character in character with a consciousness that is really distinct from the player's? In other words, crazy people have the ability to create distinct personalities in little compartments in their brain. Why do you believe a sane person can't do that?

Well, crazy people are crazy. Besides that, as I understand it there's considerable controversy over the extent, nature, and very existence of multiple personality disorders.

You're making a very tall claim here. At best, it would seem that if MPD exists, it's connected to severe trauma. You're saying you can invoke that. I think it's reasonable to express scepticism.

Quote from: MelinglorOk, the memory-wipe guy may be a bad example because it's hard to imagine a situation like that coming up in real life. But surely this kind of thing does happen in real life, for more mundane reasons? I've certainly dealt with inner emotional processes where I was experiencing bery negative feelings toward someone, or being really erdgy and snappish in a situation, and didn't understand why until I sat down and dissected it later. That's the similarity I was trying to draw on.

Of course it happens in real life.  But wasn't doing therapy on myself.  I was doing it on my character.  I can tell the difference.

Quote from: MelinglorWhen you say the answer lies within the character, not within you, that makes the discussion difficult because the very subject of debate is whether the character is "within you" or something separate.

The character is both.  It occupies a space inside of my brain alongside of me.  It's also separate in that it has it's own memories, sense of it's world, emotions, thoughts, and sometimes (clearly in that case) even a subconscious.

Quote from: MelinglorAs far as multiple personalities and schizophrenia and the like, I really don't know. It's outside my experience and I've not researched the issue.

Spend a little time looking at it via Google and then come back to this.  I'm not using comic books or TV shows as my example.  You are asking for evidence that two consciousnesses or independent voices can occupy the same brain.  That's the evidence you are looking for.

Quote from: MelinglorSo any multiple personality-type phenomena that occur in your brain, whether the result of mental illness or of "leveraging" your mind to create under controlled conditions, is still part of you, and originates from you, which is what I believe Tony's getting at.

Of course it's a part of me.  It's inside my head.  But it's also independent of my primary self and has thoughts and emotions of it's own.  I'm also hardly the only person who has had this experience.