Quote from: James J SkachOK, 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?

It makes sense having absorbed this multi-page conversation.  Will it make sense to somebody who hasn't read that?  Or are we in danger of creating a theory that cannot be explained without referring people to a mass of previous discussion?

Quote from: TonyLBSo 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!

That sounds roughly right to me, except that your "hard work" comment seems misguided.  You suggest that someone who plays this way is just hoping to get the results that he wants -- which is quite different from my experience.  

In my experience, it is pretty reliable given good circumstances.  Note that what I want isn't a particular plotline or story.  i.e. I'm certainly not feeding in inputs on the hope of getting a particular plot.  That sounds like it would be extremely hard work and probably frustrating as well.  But I'm not looking for particular output.  

Also, I'm curious about how you operate now.  To me, the gatekeeper function is pretty natural, and I do it even for non-immersive games.  i.e. When I hear "The waitress gives you a sly wink," I form a mental image of the waitress and her action -- whether deceitful or jovial.  Later on, I probably won't remember the words said, but I'll instead remember my mental image.  Do you not do that?  Does it just stay as bare words to you?

Quote from: jhkimIn my experience, it is pretty reliable given good circumstances.  Note that what I want isn't a particular plotline or story.  i.e. I'm certainly not feeding in inputs on the hope of getting a particular plot.  That sounds like it would be extremely hard work and probably frustrating as well.  But I'm not looking for particular output.

Fair enough, and if you're not looking for that then you're no operating at the same sort of removes.  I though that John M. said that he did do that kind of thing, and that's what I was addressing.  I certainly don't think that "jiggering the perceptual input to the character to nudge them in certain metagame ways" is a necessity of immersive play.  It's one technique (and I sure would love to hear others, too!) for addressing the metagame while maintaining immersion.

Quote from: jhkimAlso, I'm curious about how you operate now.  To me, the gatekeeper function is pretty natural, and I do it even for non-immersive games.  i.e. When I hear "The waitress gives you a sly wink," I form a mental image of the waitress and her action -- whether deceitful or jovial.  Later on, I probably won't remember the words said, but I'll instead remember my mental image.  Do you not do that?  Does it just stay as bare words to you?

I'll form a mental image, but until that gets put into action it's a first draft.  I remember what was said, too, in case I decide to reinterpret the words to get a more useful image.

But then, eventually, after I've layered enough actions on that foundation, what I remember is what motives my character derived from it, and I forget the original entirely.  At some point, you ask my character "Why is it that you took such an immediate dislike to that waitress?" and all he (or I) can answer is "Bwuh?  She's ... she's CREEPY, man!  Don't you see it?"

Quote from: TonyLBIt makes sense having absorbed this multi-page conversation.  Will it make sense to somebody who hasn't read that?  Or are we in danger of creating a theory that cannot be explained without referring people to a mass of previous discussion?

I suppose the depends on whether or not we can define the filters properly.

I mean, it's not like we're publishing a theory or something

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but I proposed the model.

I'm curious if it does anything for Tony.

Is it?  I mean, I remember you saying you like the idea of filters and/or masks...

It looks like whatever the source, Tony is in semi-agreement...

And everyone knows that three people in agreement means these concepts will automatically apply universally to every RPG and RPG player out there.

Quote from: TonyLBFair enough, and if you're not looking for that then you're no operating at the same sort of removes.  I though that John M. said that he did do that kind of thing, and that's what I was addressing.

To clarify, I'm not so much interested in working toward a particular plot-line, story, or even a particular outcome.  My ambition is a bit more basic.  I'm looking to avoid directions that will wreck the game for the other players and, more rarely, to push my character in a direction that will make the game run more smoothly.  So it's often more about making sure the character doesn't go down a certain path (perhaps why I see it as a "filter" or "mask" that excludes options) than about pushing the character down some other path.

But there is no reason why the technique I described couldn't be used for story or plot purposes.

I think you might end up with a perspective that viewed story differently though, and that would be cool.

Remember how I said (somewhere or other) that making a character who retreats from their troubles rather than addressing them is a good path to tragedy?  Well, that's true, but it's looking at the question from the perspective of how choices lead to outcomes.

I wonder what it would look like for someone who looked at the question from the perspective of how perception leads to outcomes.  They'd have useful things to say about what ways of looking at the world lead to tragedy.  That's stuff I'd be pretty interested to hear, really.

Quote from: TonyLBFair enough, and if you're not looking for that then you're no operating at the same sort of removes.  I though that John M. said that he did do that kind of thing, and that's what I was addressing.  I certainly don't think that "jiggering the perceptual input to the character to nudge them in certain metagame ways" is a necessity of immersive play.  It's one technique (and I sure would love to hear others, too!) for addressing the metagame while maintaining immersion.

I should clarify.  I have done things like changing the perceptual input of the character to nudge them certain ways.  However, it is rare and not a primary part of what I'm trying to get out of a game session.  It's most often to avoid a basic problem like splitting irrevocably with the other PCs, killing another PC, or some such.  

Quote from: TonyLBI'll form a mental image, but until that gets put into action it's a first draft.  I remember what was said, too, in case I decide to reinterpret the words to get a more useful image.

But then, eventually, after I've layered enough actions on that foundation, what I remember is what motives my character derived from it, and I forget the original entirely.  At some point, you ask my character "Why is it that you took such an immediate dislike to that waitress?" and all he (or I) can answer is "Bwuh?  She's ... she's CREEPY, man!  Don't you see it?"

The eventual product sounds pretty similar.  I guess a difference might be how long the first draft period is, and how often you do rewrites of what you picture (i.e. second drafts as opposed to first).  That seems like a qualitative difference, and I'm not sure how one would characterize it.  Obviously there a period from when you first hear it that you might have some questions.  If I go on to interact with the waitress there, I would be likely to revise my mental image a few times.  In a highly interactive scene like a combat where everyone's taking actions in the same place, my mental picture usually goes through a lot of revisions, for example.  ("Wait, that's a _wooden_ table?  Oh.  I was picturing it as metal.")

Quote from: James J SkachFucking Australians...

I don't know about JB, but for me it's a little bit personal. John argued at me on another thread for page after page that I didn't really know what I was doing. He impugned my competence and truthfulness. He refused to accept my account of events.

Okay, have it back – in spades. At least I was talking about events that could, in principle, be verified. John is talking about voices in his head.

droog:  Have I done something to you that warrants your disrupting my ability to have a discussion?  Because you're not just effecting John, you're effecting everyone who is trying to have a conversation here.  And I'd be awfully surprised to discover that we'd all mistreated you.

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.

I'd say these are true for me too.

Immersible characters' decisions and reactions don't appear to get made in any different manner from my own decisions and reactions.  Sometimes I can explain them, but with no more precision and accuracy than I can explain my own: if I tell you why I did something you'll understand that my best description of  in words still won't catch all the experience I'm consciously aware of, and that furthermore there are apt to be elements I'm not conscious of.  Comes a point where the same philosophical questions turn up -- to what extent does what I am determine what I do, or what I do determine what I am?  There are places where I can't answer those questions for me, or can't even distinguish between what I do and what I am; and that also happens for immersible characters.

QuoteWhat 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.

It's sounding so far as if John does this routinely and as standard operating procedure, without experiencing it as an interruption, whereas my closest approaches to this I definitely experience as conscious interruptions in the deep IC state.

QuoteIf 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's demanding and restrictive in one way, but I experience it as a relief in another.   The quality of my mostly conscious inventions and play is unimpressive; they tend to feel arbitrary and flat to me if they remain matters of conscious manipulation, and it's like Sisyphus' boulder-rolling to create.  While I don't always achieve what I want channelling, I can pretty much guarantee an absence of finesse and panache if what I begin consciously doesn't sooner or later move to the subconscious.  Like note-by-note one-fingered piano-playing: that's not a bad analogy for it.

QuoteIt 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, I have at least two, in a case where I've achieved immersive play: my view and the character's.  I've never done anything like Mary Kuhner and immersed in multiple perspectives in a session.  This may partly be because immersion, for me, is a lot less fragile than it tends to be for some people -- once I get there, it's grabby, in the sense that I can have difficulty getting one character to relinquish the hardware so I can load something else: it takes time for me to completely unload the mindset.  This is particularly noticeable in cases where I'm only playing and not running.

In a game I was in a couple of years ago, for various reasons I ended up starting play with a character who was imprisoned.  The villain was threatening his wife and children in an effort to make him do something morally intolerable, that would have destroyed his people, whom he felt strongly obligated to protect; and my character wasn't a man who easily tolerated forced inactivity or passivity, but there wasn't anything he could do to escape.  I had amazingly strong immersion with this character, and it quickly developed that he decided that the only thing he could do, the thing he was bound to do, was kill himself if he possibly could.  Dead, he was of no use to the villain, and it would remove the motive for the villain to target his wife and children specifically.  Dead, he could not be brought to destroy his own people.  So I picked up the character and shortly found him climbing the walls from the forced inactivity and fear for his family, and, with utterly grim determination, planning to splinter some wood he had access to in order to make a stabbing point he could fall on and drive through his heart, there being no better method at hand.

And here's the thing -- OOCly, I knew a rescue was coming.  And I had expected that knowing that would make the character's situation tolerable -- I thought I'd get some OOC --> IC bleedthrough, and I have no problem watching other people's sessions until my turn comes around, until the other PCs got to the point where they could spring my character.  But it didn't happen that way.

I usually think about the game and the characters when I'm not playing, and mostly that's fine, even helpful, because I can bring new insight to the next session.  But in this case, it started to drive me up the wall, because I'd find myself (as is a common case) thinking IC when my mind was otherwise unoccupied.  Meaning, I'd be trying to go to sleep, and my bloody subconscious would spring grim, determined, desperate Valen on me.  Now I could have suppressed the character altogether, but I didn't really want to do that because I was going to play him.  So I ended up asking the GM to move the rescue up as much as he could, so I didn't have to keep that particular frame of mind around for longer than necessary.

This, and the strength of another reaction when I was only playing, is making it look as if the reason I don't tend to react as strongly as this when I'm GMing isn't so much OOC --> IC bleedthrough as it is simple distraction: I can never dive so deep when I'm GMing, can never spend so much time IC without breaking the mindset to deal with metaworld issues like pacing, spotlight, other NPCs, resolutions, etc.

In this particular case, something I thought would serve as a filter mitigating the character's reactions didn't work.

Quote from: TonyLBdroog: Have I done something to you that warrants your disrupting my ability to have a discussion? Because you're not just effecting John, you're effecting everyone who is trying to have a conversation here. And I'd be awfully surprised to discover that we'd all mistreated you.

Well, I said I was going to leave it alone, but then James felt compelled to get involved. So I thought I'd set the record straight for the benefit of my fellow Australians.

In point of fact, I was originally having a tangential but related conversation with John Morrow when you felt the need to stick your oar in. Now you've done it again, compelling me to reply to you.

Over and out.

Yes, it's my fault you came in here and shit all over our conversation...because I pointed it out after the fact...

There's a small problem of the space time continuum you have to adjust to get the right cause/effect, but that's small beans...

EDIT: I was already involved - in the conversation.  So spare me the melodramtic "compelled to get involved."

Quote from: James J SkachYes, it's my fault you came in here and shit all over our conversation...because I pointed it out after the fact...

Uh uh. As I said to Tony, I was taking up a related point with John, when he came in and berated me (#144). That's when the shitting might be said to have begun. Then in #147 you waded in.

The conversation with Keran appears to be proceeding just fine. Maybe you and Tony should just butt out?

If you want to have a private conversation with someone, then don't use a forum - use private messaging, email, or instant messenger programs. By posting to a public forum you are implicitly asking for public input.

Some of the public comments will not be of interest to you. Some may even say that your discussion is a waste of time, and based on absurdities. You can't really complain about that, and say, "then why come and comment? Can't you just let us chat about this thing?" If it's absurd, people will want to point it out.

"Here on this thread we are discussing the Flat Earth, and whether it's square or round."
"What the fuck? The Earth isn't flat!"
"Look, this is a thread for people who think the Earth is flat, so why do you feel the need to tell us that it isn't?"

People like to point out what they think are absurdities. You shouldn't reject those people, you should welcome them. Either your ideas are absurd, in which case you should welcome being told so and correct your absurdities; or else your ideas are sensible and well-founded, in which case you should welcome the chance to develop and strengthen your ideas by explaining them to a sceptic.

"Here on this thread we are discussing the Round Earth, and whether it's perfectly spherical or a big egg-shaped."
"What the fuck? The Earth isn't round!"
"Look, this is a thread for people who think the Earth is round, so why do feel the need to tell us that it isn't?"

The Flat-Earther's absurd ideas will be revealed by discussion with non-believers, and the Round-Earther's good ideas will be developed and strengthened by discussion with non-believers. Whether your ideas are good or bad, they'll be improved by discussion with sceptics. Welcome sceptics.

If you only want to talk to other Flat- or Round-Earthers, and not be interrupted by unbelievers, then you should use email, PM or IM. It's a public forum.