Quote from: TonyLBSo, what actually happened in the game I played Yoshi in was that she started out as an obedient young girl with an abusive father.  Then, in-game, she found the support of Khaidu, and that led her to defy her father and become a new person ... specifically, the person described above.

Let me start here, since I think this gets closest to what I was looking for.

This represents the point in the game where Yoshi changed the way she thought about herself and her father.  It's a change in the character.

What I'm asking is how you represent knowing how Yoshi is in your brain.  How do you know who Yoshi is, that she's changed, and what does it mean to change the model of the character in your head when the change happens in the game?  Let me try this from a different angle.

If someone asked Yoshi, in the game, "So what made you change your mind?" how would she answer?  And where does the answer come from?

It's possible that I'm running back into your holistic process and you won't have an answer that would be useful to me.  If so, that's OK.

Quote from: TonyLBBut, of course, things could have gone differently.  She could have remained loyal to her father, and repudiated her friend.  And that would make her a new person too, but a different new person.

Correct.  Could you strip the story-concerns (or change them) that are part of your holistic decision process so that your characters would be more likely to make tragic decisions or not change?  (Ignore, for the moment, whether you'd actually want to do that or not.)  

Quote from: TonyLBAm I making any sense here?  Again, I feel like I may be misunderstanding the thrust of the question.

You are making sense but I'm not getting what I want.  I'm still trying to look into your black box so maybe the answer is that the things that I'm expecting you to be able to talk about just aren't there for you.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn:  I'm trying to write "There are many possible actions for a character, all valid," and you seem to be somehow reading "Only the action that suits a specific style of story is valid."  That's not what I'm trying to say.

That's not what I'm trying to say.  This is one of those places where my mind doesn't work linearly.  I tend to see strong connections between issues where other people see weak links or no link at all.  I understand if you aren't following my change of direction.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're sitting here arguing for your right to consider a heartless, vicious Scrooge as a legitimate place to take the character.  You don't have to fight to convince me of that.  I think it's legitimate.  I think lots of things are all legitimate.  That's what I'm trying to say.

No, I get that.  

What I'm suggesting is that if you also do what you seem to be saying you were doing, which is to factor "fun" into the process, that will color the the places where you take your character.  So can genre concerns.  If the players are playing by those rules (applying that filter or mask), then it will reduce which of the legitimate places a character can go that the player is willing to chose.

Let me ask a question to try to bring this back around to what we are talking about.  Do you ever play the Scrooge that never changes?  If so, under what circumstances?

Quote from: TonyLBHow are we miscommunicating so badly here?

We don't think about the hobby the same way and probably don't think the same way in general.  It happens.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat I'm asking is how you represent knowing how Yoshi is in your brain.  How do you know who Yoshi is, that she's changed, and what does it mean to change the model of the character in your head when the change happens in the game?

The same way I knew about her before she changed.  I've got a sense of who she is ... it's just a different sense than it was, much like I'd recognize if a friend were changing the way she acted.  How do you represent knowing how your character is in your brain?

Quote from: John MorrowIf someone asked Yoshi, in the game, "So what made you change your mind?" how would she answer?  And where does the answer come from?

The answer comes from how she thinks now about her own past.  Right afterwards?  She'd probably say something like "I couldn't let father keep pushing things toward a conflict with Khaidu.  I just ... I couldn't."

But then, a while later, if you asked her the same question she'd say "You know, I used to think it was all about Khaidu ... but I really needed to face up to that man.  I wonder whether, if Khaidu hadn't come along, I'd have found some other reason.  Who knows?"

And then, a while later, if you asked her the same question she'd say "God ... was I ever that young?  I don't know.  I just don't know that girl any more.  That was a different life.  Now hand me my knife, there's still cultists on the loose, and we're not going to make anyone safer gabbing here."

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  Could you strip the story-concerns (or change them) that are part of your holistic decision process so that your characters would be more likely to make tragic decisions or not change?

Tragedy's easy.  If you play a character as too weak to embrace the difficulties of her own life then it will end in tragedy.  All you've got to do is make enough of the wrong choices.

Not change?  No.  If I freeze a character in time then they're not a human character any more.  Now I can play them believing that they're unchanging ... but they're wrong.  Another good path to tragedy, by the way

Quote from: John MorrowWhat I'm suggesting is that if you also do what you seem to be saying you were doing, which is to factor "fun" into the process, that will color the the places where you take your character.  So can genre concerns.  If the players are playing by those rules (applying that filter or mask), then it will reduce which of the legitimate places a character can go that the player is willing to chose.

Ah.  Yes, that's true.  They'll only go places that are fun for me.

If Hypothetical-Sam is a player who combines those issues the way I do, but he finds different things fun (like the telenovelas you were talking about) then he'll choose to go different places, because those are the places that are fun for him.

Quote from: KeranOne of the items that is not in my toolbox is telling a deep IC player, "Well, just make your character react some other way."  Because they probably can't do it without breaking the character in a way that destroys the point of playing.

What I've learned over time is that I can either (A) nudge the character to react some other way (the key there is finding the pivotal spot in the character's psyche where a small nudge produces the desired big change in thinking) or (B) identify what's going on inside my character's head so I can explain what other characters need to do, in the game world, to get the desired result out of my character.  I've also learned to identify the warning signs of a character heading toward game-wrecking decisions in some cases, so I can give it the attention it needs to avoid wrecking the game.

Maybe Tony has a good point, that it's a just a matter of learning how to do it all together at the same time so it doesn't take an overwhelming amount of conscious energy to make it happen, like learning how to play cords on a piano.  But I still think it's correct to say that you can't count on every Deep IC player being able to do that, since it's very difficult to do deliberately.  The player needs to have developed that sort of tool for their toolbox.  They can't be forced to "just do it".

Quote from: TonyLBAh.  Yes, that's true.  They'll only go places that are fun for me.

In practice, what does that mean you won't do?  Any general things or is it case by case?

And can you see how knowing what you consider fun may make it easier for players and GMs to predict where your character will go in the game because they can have some idea of what you will or won't do with your character because of that "filter"?  Does that make why the filters/masks you apply to what your character will do have some value to understanding the way a game feels more clear to you?

Quote from: TonyLBThe same way I knew about her before she changed.  I've got a sense of who she is ... it's just a different sense than it was, much like I'd recognize if a friend were changing the way she acted.  How do you represent knowing how your character is in your brain?

Ultimately, I create a virtual personality in my brain that thinks for itself and has it's own memories and perspective of the game world.  Before I reach that point, I tend to represent the character as a bunch of broad strokes that paint a very rough picture.  Usually an attitude and a focus (one or more people or things that the character values strongly) give me something good to build on.  As I play the character and actually react to things using the broad strokes, I fill in a lot of details and create a mental model, perspective, and in game memories for the character.  Once enough of that framework is in place, I can just think in character.  

That's part of why I'm curious about what you do.  At the points where I'm thinking about my character rather than thinking in character, the model is generally much more crude, as are my decisions and characterization in the game.  That may be part of the bias you saw in the r.g.f.a model with the assumption that to play your character well, you need to think in character.  Perhaps for many people who normally play by thinking in character, they have the same problem that thinking about their character produces much cruder and less appealing results.

Quote from: TonyLBThe answer comes from how she thinks now about her own past.  Right afterwards?  She'd probably say something like "I couldn't let father keep pushing things toward a conflict with Khaidu.  I just ... I couldn't."

That's interesting.  See, that "probably" is probably significant.  If I were to step into my D&D character and ask him to defend deserting his post, the explanation would be how my character defends himself.  There would be no "probably" about it.  Where you see some other possibilities, I'd see the answer from the character.

FYI, I have the opposite experience when I GM and create setting details or don't play NPCs in character but decide what they do.  There, I see plenty of possibilities, as I explained previously.  And there, I run into my other problem which is picking between possibilities.  Because where some people have no trouble picking the one that's the most fun or just picking one at random, I can never whittle the possibilities down to a small enough list or have enough of a preference to just make a choice like that.

But then, a while later, if you asked her the same question she'd say "You know, I used to think it was all about Khaidu ... but I really needed to face up to that man.  I wonder whether, if Khaidu hadn't come along, I'd have found some other reason.  Who knows?"

Quote from: TonyLBAnd then, a while later, if you asked her the same question she'd say "God ... was I ever that young?  I don't know.  I just don't know that girl any more.  That was a different life.  Now hand me my knife, there's still cultists on the loose, and we're not going to make anyone safer gabbing here."

Is it common for your characters to cut their past loose like that once they change direction or is that a character-specific thing for this character?

Quote from: TonyLBTragedy's easy.  If you play a character as too weak to embrace the difficulties of her own life then it will end in tragedy.  All you've got to do is make enough of the wrong choices.

Yeah, but the best tragedy comes from when it's not inevitable, when it's plausible for the character to avoid it.  And that means that if you don't consider tragedy fun, you'll never create a character who can't avoid it, nor will your character ultimately choose the tragic option if they have a way out.  Even if that's not entirely true for you, do you understand where I'm going with that?  If my assumptions are correct, for the sake of argument, you'd never play a King Lear or Hamlet or MacBeth.

Quote from: TonyLBNot change?  No.  If I freeze a character in time then they're not a human character any more.  Now I can play them believing that they're unchanging ... but they're wrong.  Another good path to tragedy, by the way

I think we have a different definition of change, then.

Quote from: John MorrowIn practice, what does that mean you won't do?  Any general things or is it case by case?

It's pretty case-by-case.  The things I pursue are positives that I like (random examples: a character who has something to stand for, a situation that pushes people together and forces them to deal with each other, etc.) rather than negatives that I avoid.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd can you see how knowing what you consider fun may make it easier for players and GMs to predict where your character will go in the game because they can have some idea of what you will or won't do with your character because of that "filter"?  Does that make why the filters/masks you apply to what your character will do have some value to understanding the way a game feels more clear to you?

The question you're asking isn't clear to me, though I suspect that when we get that worked out the actual thing you're asking apart will be.

Quote from: John MorrowUltimately, I create a virtual personality in my brain that thinks for itself and has it's own memories and perspective of the game world.  Before I reach that point, I tend to represent the character as a bunch of broad strokes that paint a very rough picture.  Usually an attitude and a focus (one or more people or things that the character values strongly) give me something good to build on.  As I play the character and actually react to things using the broad strokes, I fill in a lot of details and create a mental model, perspective, and in game memories for the character.  Once enough of that framework is in place, I can just think in character.

Those are the steps of how you warm up ... not the components of what you're actually doing.  That's like saying "I adjust the piano seat, then I play a couple of scales, then I stretch out my shoulders ... and then when I've done all that I can just play a concerto."  Agreed?

Quote from: John MorrowThat's interesting.  See, that "probably" is probably significant.  If I were to step into my D&D character and ask him to defend deserting his post, the explanation would be how my character defends himself.  There would be no "probably" about it.

Well, I think you're reading too much into one word, but I take your point.  That whole phenomenon of a character who could only have one possible response to a situation is what I was talking about with the whole Scrooge examples (was that this thread, or somewhere else?).  I think that real human beings usually only have a "probably" answer about how they'd react under stress.  Yes, sometimes all the planets align and they are driven to one course and could take no other, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

I think that, to the extent that you deliberately portray a character who is more rigid than that, you're making something different from human personality.

Quote from: John MorrowIs it common for your characters to cut their past loose like that once they change direction or is that a character-specific thing for this character?

Yoshi changed enough that she could no longer understand the motives of her earlier self.  Okay, that's not exactly true ... she chose not to, because of various ways she'd been hurt.  In the middle section of her arc, she was becoming pretty self-aware, but by the end she had enough emotional scars that she just stopped looking inside of herself.

I'd guess that it's about as common in my play as it is in human beings under a great deal of stress ... not uncommon, but not universal either.

Quote from: John MorrowYeah, but the best tragedy comes from when it's not inevitable, when it's plausible for the character to avoid it.  And that means that if you don't consider tragedy fun, you'll never create a character who can't avoid it, nor will your character ultimately choose the tragic option if they have a way out.

Well, as a matter of fact I do find tragedy great fun, but if I didn't ... so what?  If it's not fun for me, why should I do it?

Quote from: TonyLBSo you're saying that in the actual moment there is only one possible course available to the character?

No.  If a character has a choice to make, then there must be more than one thing they could do.  But it has to be the character making the choice, if I'm playing immersively and expect to keep doing so.

And the character emulation routine doesn't, and can't, include considerations like "For social reasons, Keran doesn't want to kill off someone's character in their first session" as an input, nor "Keran's really attached to Shazemar and doesn't want him killed." Those aren't things the character can think about.

Since I really don't want Shazemar killed, and I also really don't want Khameris to turn to cardboard (since I lose an interesting character either way), what I do (since I can foresee these objectives possibly colliding) is to find some place in some other model where I do have some ability to adjust it without breaking it, and make it unlikely that Khameris will ever find out what happened to Shazemar.  I can't guarantee that it won't happen, but in places where the world model really might go either way, I can pick the branch that makes it less likely.

I do have models that I can nudge in desirable directions, but they're not immersible characters.  The only acceptable place from which to make a decision for an immersible character is inside the character.

Why can't you think about how you're attached to someone and wouldn't want them killed and still be thinking as the character?

Quote from: TonyLBThose are the steps of how you warm up ... not the components of what you're actually doing.  That's like saying "I adjust the piano seat, then I play a couple of scales, then I stretch out my shoulders ... and then when I've done all that I can just play a concerto."  Agreed?

Correct.  I'm trying to explain how the internal mindspace for the character gets built and how it clicks on.  It's also why I probably have a bias toward thinking of "thinking about the character" as being more crude and less interesting than "thinking in character". For me it is, though for other people it isn't.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that real human beings usually only have a "probably" answer about how they'd react under stress.  Yes, sometimes all the planets align and they are driven to one course and could take no other, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

I think that, to the extent that you deliberately portray a character who is more rigid than that, you're making something different from human personality.

And I'm not sure you are getting the context for the "one right answer".  Let me see if I can explain with the Scrooge example.

Scrooge is going to bed an Marley's ghost shows up.  At that point, there are a bunch of ways that Scrooge could react (e.g., he could keep insisting he's imagining the ghost, he could fear Marley and go along with the visits like he did in the story, he could get the whole point from Marley and not need the 3 visits, he could fight Marley and defend himself, etc.).  Maybe we could select one of those as the "probably" reaction but Scrooge might react different when it actually happens.

Suppose I'm playing Scrooge in character.  The GM has Marley's ghost visit my PC.  I don't think of all of those possibilities.  I hear out Marley as Scrooge (and visualize the scene with what the GM gives me) and then just react to it.  Once the character has experienced something and reacted to it, that's the way the character reacted to it.  As the player, I might assume that Scrooge would fight the ghost (much the way he fought everyone else up to that point) but maybe when the Scrooge I'm playing in character hears Marley's exlanation of the chain and his business, it will resonate with him instantly and he'll change then, without needing the three ghosts.  But once the character hears out Marley and reacts to it, that's the authentic and correct character response.  Any other response will be editing what happened.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, as a matter of fact I do find tragedy great fun, but if I didn't ... so what?  If it's not fun for me, why should I do it?

I'm not saying you should.  I'm just curious how broad your definition of fun is. It might come up if we discuss verisimilitude, which is also loosely related to thinking in character.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy can't you think about how you're attached to someone and wouldn't want them killed and still be thinking as the character?

Let's see if this makes sense...

Because the character gets a say in who they are attached to and there are often good reasons for their assessment.

It's sort of like children who hate each other in school having their mothers say, "Why can't you just get along and like each other?"  It's not always that easy.

Right, I'm saying that from a character standpoint you decide (or realize depending on your immersion level) that you're attached to someone and don't want them dead.

I know that I'm attached to my wife and don't want her dead, and am pretty sure my motivations are at least as real as most characters.

Quote from: James McMurrayRight, I'm saying that from a character standpoint you decide (or realize depending on your immersion level) that you're attached to someone and don't want them dead.

I know that I'm attached to my wife and don't want her dead, and am pretty sure my motivations are at least as real as most characters.

It might be a misunderstanding..possibly.

I had the same reaction until I reread the sentence.  It's not the character that's attached to the other character - it's the player (Keran in this case).  Which is why using that particular motivation might violate a deeply in character persons sensibilities.