Is it your contention, droog, that John is unable to actually wall off the character's personality to the extent that the does - that he can be so deeply in character as to not be able to even consider OOC information?

Translated, that means you are of the opinion that John is either delusional, or doesn't really understand how he plays.

Is that the road you'd like to go down?

Quote from: James J SkachTranslated, that means you are of the opinion that John is either delusional, or doesn't really understand how he plays.

Is that the road you'd like to go down?

Let's just say I'm sceptical. John is essentially making the argument from religious experience.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, I think you're misreading my posting tone here.

I know people are trying to be helpful by digging for an understanding of what I really, really do and I do understand your point.  I'm simply trying to point out that my frustration at having to explain I'm not delusion and that I really do have a decent idea of what's going on in my own head is, I suspect, not all that unlike your frustration at trying to get me to believe you know what's going on in your head.  

The truth is that I don't think anyone can be 100% certain that what they think is going on in their head really is.  Research on how people make decisions is showing, for example, that a lot of decisions reported as "reasoning -> decision" are really "decision -> rationalization".  That is, the brain makes subconscious decisions and the conscious brain catches up and explains it.  So it's possible that what we're all doing is a subconscious trick that our conscious brain creates a metaphor for or thinks about as a holistic process.  But where does recognizing that get us?  What does it change?  In practice, it doesn't seem to be changing much.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm not trying to say "Oh, if only he realized that he was like us then he would recognize that the solutions that we apply to our problems will also work for his problems ... and we could all hug puppies together!"

I got that.  No problem.

Quote from: TonyLBI totally buy that your mental process in gaming is qualitatively different from mine.  You are doing something I wouldn't even know how to attempt.  And as a result of that, some techniques (especially those consciously mixing metagame information into the character decision process) that work for me will not and can not work for you.

Correct, and vice versa.  But even if the mental process I'm describing is simply a delusion -- my brain's metaphor for something else that's really going on -- and even if I acknowledge that as a possibility or even what I'm probably doing, it doesn't change the fact that I think about things and manipulate the thoughts in my head a certain way as far as my conscious thoughts about it are concerned.  

For the difference to be a difference, I'd not only have to recognize that I'm not maintaining distinct personalities in my head but I'd have to understand what I really am doing.  And the process of doing that could tear down what I'm doing only to find out that the alternative isn't a lot of fun for me.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn Kim asked why it was important whether you think a different way:  That was my answer to him.  I was trying to help, so please don't take it as an attack.  Accept my assurances that, at worst, it was well-intentioned clumsiness, for which I apologize.

I wasn't taking it as an attack.  I was simply trying to explain my frustration at the question and why I think simply acknowledging that it could be a delusion isn't going to be helpful.

Quote from: droogLet's just say I'm sceptical. John is essentially making the argument from religious experience.

If you've looked into philosophy of the mind and current research into how the brain works while it thinks, you'd realize that it's all an argument from religious experience.

Quote from: droogThere are plenty of people who believe in Scientology, too.

You might want to check appeal to ridicule.

Quote from: John MorrowFor the difference to be a difference, I'd not only have to recognize that I'm not maintaining distinct personalities in my head but I'd have to understand what I really am doing. And the process of doing that could tear down what I'm doing only to find out that the alternative isn't a lot of fun for me.

Well, maybe you should stop talking about imponderables like what's inside your head.

I certainly don't want you to stop having fun your way. I don't even want you to examine it if you don't want to. But there's no debate here. It's a mystical cloud.

Quote from: TonyLBYes, and it also could actually hinge upon what he ate for breakfast.  But he tells me that it hinges upon keeping the secondary persona actually firewalled, and since he's the one with the best possible knowledge of the situation, I'm going to do my best to accept that, even though it is very different from what I'm familiar with.

Here's what happens if bad information is introduced into the process or if I try to inject meta-game information into the process.

Somehow and somewhere in the process, I used all of the information that I imagine the character experiencing, knowing, feeling, and so forth and combine that with how I understand the game world works from the character's perspective (often a combination of setting information, how the game as gone so far, and sometimes the rules as a representation of the physics and what's possible) and, as what you might refer to as a holistic process, an answer pops out.  It's not a decision in the conscious sense.  

If I introduce bad information into that process (e.g., conflicting information or something like a continuity error), one of two things happens.  In some cases, the process crashes because it can't make sense of the input.  I realize something is wrong with the data.  In some cases, the bad information gets forced to fit and my in character understanding of the setting gets warped in the process, which can have bad long-term consequences, including character insanity.  But I'm very sensitive to things like continuity errors or a game setting that says one thing (e.g., Orcs are dangerous) and rules that say something else (e.g., Orcs are really not all that dangerous in combat).  Keran describes a similar problem in the other thread by realizing that their character had broken an in character constraint.

If I try to introduce meta-game information into the process, it usually breaks entirely because the meta-game information relies on information that has no meaning inside of the game setting or to the character in order to make sense.   "If I attack this other PC, I'll destroy the game," can't be incorporated into a character perspective because "PC" and "game" has no meaning to the character.  "If you don't take this call to adventure, there won't be a fun game tonight," can't be incorporated into a character perspective because the idea of going on discreet adventures, that my character has some obligation to do so, and the players who will have their fun destroyed, has no meaning to the character.

So regardless of what I'm really doing, the process hinges around imagining the character's perspective and emotions to figure out what they'd do.  Meta-game information just doesn't have a place where it will fit in the process of "imagining the character's perspective".

Quote from: droogWell, maybe you should stop talking about imponderables like what's inside your head.

Well, it's kinda difficult to explain what I'm doing or why stuff doesn't work for me without at least taking a stab at it.

Quote from: droogI certainly don't want you to stop having fun your way. I don't even want you to examine it if you don't want to. But there's no debate here. It's a mystical cloud.

And that's fine.  You can certainly look at it that way.  But that also means giving up on trying to ever understand it.  While that makes sense in some cases, sometimes it is possible to achieve some understanding by talking through it.

Quote from: droogWell, maybe you should stop talking about imponderables like what's inside your head.

droog:  What the fuck?  Did an immersionist piss in your cheerios or something?  The things happening inside our heads ... that's the topic of conversation here.  If you don't like it then just don't read the thread.  But saying that your subjective opinions (for instance ... power struggles, wasn't it?) are worthy of investigation but any other opinions are mere unfounded mysticism ... that's bullshit, man.

Man.  A bunch of us were having a perfectly reasonable, productive conversation here.  Are you proud of the nasty, sniping, ad hominem level that you've been trying to drag it down to?

Quote from: John Morrowand, as what you might refer to as a holistic process, an answer pops out.  It's not a decision in the conscious sense.

... and ...

Quote from: John MorrowSo regardless of what I'm really doing, the process hinges around imagining the character's perspective and emotions to figure out what they'd do.  Meta-game information just doesn't have a place where it will fit in the process of "imagining the character's perspective".

So let me feed my understanding of this back, and you can tell me whether I've got what sounds like a decent understanding, or if I'm missing some critical things:
   Character decisions and actions emerge (without further intervention) from the interplay of the various pieces of your character (their perceptions as you understand them, their memories, their abilities, their attitudes, etc., etc.)  The process between "the character model in my head" and "the things the character will do" doesn't break down into any further components ... from that point, all the pieces operating are tightly intertwined, and can't be pulled free (to examine them) without destroying their function.  Holistic.

The nature of this process is such that meta-game information doesn't fit in it.  Trying to make it fit would be like trying to attach lincoln logs to legos.  They may both serve similar purposes, but those pieces just aren't built to connect in the same way.

What you can do (and, in fact, do) is to use the metagame information to inform your role as a gatekeeper between the actual words and narration at the table, and the mental picture that you feed in to your character model.  When you are told "The waitress gives you a sly wink," you decide whether to read that as charming and jovial, or instead to read it as malevolent and deceitful.  By changing those perceptions, you change the perceived world that your character is operating in, and thereby change the actions that arise from them in interaction with that world.If I've got that right, let me just say first of all that that sounds like hard work.  Operating at that many removes ... changing the perceptions you feed in and just hoping that it will get the results you want.  Wow.  Tough stuff.  You have my admiration for pulling it off with (I assume) finesse and panache.

It also sounds fascinating, in a well nigh post-modern sense.  If you've got five people at the table operating that way then you've got five different worlds being imagined ... not merely because of the differences that crop up naturally, but also because of a deliberate process of redaction and reinterpretation that each player is applying to the world at every stage of narration.  That's cool!

Quote from: TonyLBMan.  A bunch of us were having a perfectly reasonable, productive conversation here.  Are you proud of the nasty, sniping, ad hominem level that you've been trying to drag it down to?

I don't think I've made an ad hominem at any stage, Tony. I would like to be able to speak my opinion on the matter.

I'll assert right here that power is something that can be studied and discussed. Short of extensive psychological testing (and perhaps the measurement of brain activity), there's bugger-all anybody can do to determine the objective truth of John's claims. That makes them irrelevant. What it boils down to is that John doesn't like anything he regards as a meta-game element. No Director Stance, thanks.

Can you not see that John has made your conversation all about the contents of his head? What's productive about that? We get it, already!


[But I'll step off now. Have fun.]

Fucking Australians...

EDIT: Perhaps I should explain.  I've got a thing with JimBob about his casual slams at the US. He's from Australia.  droog, too, is from Australia.  Both JimBob and droog have now come into threads in which I, and others, are having perfectly reasonable conversations about things that obviously interest us enough to continue for the sole purpose of telling us the conversation we're having is worthless - because they think so.

I'm now going to use Australians as shorthand for people who are so attention starved and self-centered as to feel the need to act as JimBob and droog have acted.

Nothing to see here, move along....

OK, so going after the Character and Player concepts, with the filters/masks concepts....

Don't classify the decisions, per se, classify the filters.  Some filters are external to the character, some are internal, some might be both(?).

Then categorize the decision based on what filters were applied...

So someone in Character stance is always only applying Character filters...

make any sense at all?

Quote from: TonyLB... and ...
So let me feed my understanding of this back, and you can tell me whether I've got what sounds like a decent understanding, or if I'm missing some critical things:
   Character decisions and actions emerge (without further intervention) from the interplay of the various pieces of your character (their perceptions as you understand them, their memories, their abilities, their attitudes, etc., etc.)  The process between "the character model in my head" and "the things the character will do" doesn't break down into any further components ... from that point, all the pieces operating are tightly intertwined, and can't be pulled free (to examine them) without destroying their function.  Holistic.

The nature of this process is such that meta-game information doesn't fit in it.  Trying to make it fit would be like trying to attach lincoln logs to legos.  They may both serve similar purposes, but those pieces just aren't built to connect in the same way.

What you can do (and, in fact, do) is to use the metagame information to inform your role as a gatekeeper between the actual words and narration at the table, and the mental picture that you feed in to your character model.  When you are told "The waitress gives you a sly wink," you decide whether to read that as charming and jovial, or instead to read it as malevolent and deceitful.  By changing those perceptions, you change the perceived world that your character is operating in, and thereby change the actions that arise from them in interaction with that world.

I think that's essentially correct.

Quote from: TonyLBIf I've got that right, let me just say first of all that that sounds like hard work.

That's OK.  What you do seems like hard work to me.

Quote from: TonyLBOperating at that many removes ... changing the perceptions you feed in and just hoping that it will get the results you want.  Wow.  Tough stuff.  You have my admiration for pulling it off with (I assume) finesse and panache.

It's not so much hard as delicate.  It can break down easily (though more easily for some than others).  You'll hear that from people who play from that perspective a lot.  It's why we can sound so militant about keeping the meta-game out of sight and why verisimilitude issues can be so important.  As long as it's not being disrupted, I think it's actually very easy and natural to do.  

As for the finesse and panache, when it's working right, it's a wonderful experience but it doesn't always work right.  And the reality of game pacing, eating Cheetos, and talking about what was on Dr. Who last week means that we do our share of not being in character and just chatting and stuff.  That's why I agreed with JimBobOz's assessment that what my group does probably wouldn't look too different than what other groups do, other than a slower pace and a greater obsession over details.  

In my primary group, we play 12 hour sessions.  Only a part of that time is spent doing deep role-playing stuff.  There are times when I'm out of character or doing something else because my character is off screen and combat, for me, is more of a tactical exercise than a role-playing exercise.  So it's not all deep IC play for me.  It's not that we have 3 hours of fun in 12 hours or anything like that.  It's usually all fun, even the socializing about the TV shows that were on during the previous week or whatever, since I play with friends I like.  It's just that it's not all deep role-playing in character fun.

The D&D game was 3-4 hour sessions.  That was a lot more focused and had a much higher percentage of role-playing to total play time.  We didn't have as much time to mess around if we actually wanted the game to progress.  Sometimes most of the session was spent IC for me.

There are groups that don't drop out of character for much of anything and almost everything the players say is in character.  I'm not sure how I'd handle that intensity or inability to switch into player perspective to make comments.

Quote from: TonyLBIt also sounds fascinating, in a well nigh post-modern sense.  If you've got five people at the table operating that way then you've got five different worlds being imagined ... not merely because of the differences that crop up naturally, but also because of a deliberate process of redaction and reinterpretation that each player is applying to the world at every stage of narration.  That's cool!

Well, there is the way I look at the game world and the way my character looks at the game world and the two different perspectives can co-exist side-by-side.  As a player, I have a much more omniscient perspective than the character does.

For example, I've had a characters develop beliefs about the game world that I think (or even know) were not correct and I've observed my characters doing stupid things that I know were stupid but the character thought they made sense.  In once instance (and I don't even remember the details at the moment), I told the GM what my character's speculation was and the GM told me I was wrong.  The character continued to believe it, though.

So there could be five people around the table and ten different worlds being imagined.  And then there is Mary Kuhner.  She's figured out how to play multiple characters in the same game immersively in one-on-one games with her husband.  So she might be holding 6 or 7 perspectives of the same game world in her head at once.

Quote from: James J Skachmake any sense at all?

Yes, but I proposed the model.

I'm curious if it does anything for Tony.