TheRPGSite

Splintered from here (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40972-Essay-quot-GURPS-and-the-Fate-Accessibility-Toolkit-quot).

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122830To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

Quote from: Omega;1122852Its nothing new really. And goes back at least to the early silent movie era and I'd bet there were sporatic incidents as long as theres been stage plays and actors. Some people just cannot grasp acting and for god unknown reasons see the actor and the character as one and the same nearly, or at least that the actor must have the same inclinations as the character. This seems to invariably be directed at the villains.

SJWs just take it to insane extremes as they do everything else. Hell its popped up in board gaming even.

Quote from: Heavy Josh;1122883I'm reading this, and a few things begin to make sense. I can see that there are some people for whom RPGs give them the license to go to dark places and enjoy imagining doing dark things there a little too much.  That Player has definitely made me uncomfortable...

But the rest is eye-opening. There's a certain puritanical aspect to the proscriptive connection between fantasy and reality, isn't there? Unless one's thoughts and imagination are good, there is no way to behave "good". So, where does this attitude stem from?  Is there a basis for this "imagination is who you really are" in psychology, or sociology? Or is this a pop-pseudo-science-psychiatry? Or is this entirely cynical?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1122885Its definitely true that the media we consume influences us on some level. If it didn't we wouldn't watch it. Its also desensitized us to stuff maybe we could have been sensitive towards otherwise.

The question is of course the level it influences us and the amount of reasonable responsiveness. Maybe relishing in sadisism and the misery of others can be dangaerous but maybe not. I err more on the side of "Let people do what they want" but I still get the principle of not wanting overexposure.

My thoughts on the matter aren't fully baked at the moment, and probably won't be for awhile. There's definitely a middle ground here, and it may just be that it's different for everyone. So until then I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

If you are a "little blue" or "down" for some reason, consciously choosing to try to be more cheerful can help.  Think positive thoughts.  Make yourself smile.  Dwell on blessings.  To act the thing is to move towards being the thing.  If you are clinically depressed or suffering from something truly overwhelmingly nasty, none of that will help much.  It may help a little, for a short time, around the edges, but you will still get overrun by the tsunami of feeling.  How well you do coming out of it will depend on all kinds of things, such as long-term mental resilience, support network, addressing the primary causes, etc.  This is well-understood, and not much debated as a concept, though of course there is disagreement about how strong or weak the effect can be.

Related, "visualization" as a technique works for a lot of people.  Want to be successful in the presentation?  Get prepared, then imagine yourself being successful in the presentation.  Visualization isn't a thing that works by itself, but it can put you over the top.  I do it all the time.  While that's something that can't really be measured, it correlates well enough to success that I keep making the effort.  (Whether it helps because of placebo effect, or just building confidence, or something more--doesn't really matter if one gets results, does it?)  Of course, you also get some of the effects of low-grade practice, which is why to supplement fire drills and now "active shooter drills" we don't just practice them but talk about them.

Applying to RPGs, habitually mentally imagining the same thing can make a person more competent and practiced in that thing, without necessarily doing it.  That immediately prompts the question of what people are doing when they visualize something truly nasty.  I can easily think of three without even trying, and I'm sure there are more:

1. Reveling in the nasty (bad).
2. Gaining empathy for the kind of person that would do such a thing (generally good, but a little risky for some people).
3. Pursuit of drama.

The last one is why GMs can play the bad guys for years at a time with no nasty side effects, and why anti-heroes are a thing.  

I think it is the same as it has ever been.  There are a tiny slice of people who should not be involved in excessively nasty media in any way (including RPGs, or even especially RPGs), because they have a mental problem that make them gravitate towards the worst side of practice and visualization.  RPGs won't make people crazy, but they can let crazy people go into a bad channel.  But that's true of all kinds of things, including books, film, and even music.

I would also say that the kind of people who get all bent out of shape about such things in the culture war are the type of people that probably shouldn't play RPGs--at least not without talking to their therapist first. :)

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122898I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

It's a good question. It's certainly true that I've never played characters of a significantly different moral and ethical outlook from myself -- the most "ethically challenged" character I ever played was a psionically superpowered cat burglar inspired by the "Macavity" NPC idea in the first edition of GURPS Supers, who only ever stole from the idle rich who could afford the losses. Even in my AD&D1E days, when I played druid characters who in principle held a philosophically "neutral" outlook, the characters themselves always kept their word, looked out for the needy and the innocent, and only used violence in defense of their own life. And I would certainly never have played a character capable of betraying or backstabbing his allies and friends for his own benefit: not only did I know that would tick off my friends in real life to no end, the idea just had no appeal or fun for me at all. (I've never even been able to enjoy playing the game Diplomacy, because you can't win in that game without betraying allies at the right moment.)

So in practice for me, yes: in a game where I'm given my own personal druthers, I only generally "pretend to be" different versions of myself because that's where I get my enjoyment out of the game: the personal wish fulfillment. (As an actor I can play, and can enjoy playing, characters very different from me, but the big difference there is I'm doing it in service to a script and a pre-written story, where the highest priority is the audience's entertainment, not my own.) If the SJ desire for games that actively encourage all kinds of diversity in PC types was solely about making sure everybody knows they can do this kind of self-projecting wish fulfillment, no matter who or what you happen to be, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.

Unfortunately that's not solely what it's about, by these advocates' own admission: the encouragement of "diversity" in games isn't intended solely as an encouragement note for "diverse" gamers, but as moral and social advice (read: browbeating) for the real lives of those of us not sufficiently personally intersectionally diverse. The assumption is that if people can change a popular entertainment, the entertainment will influence the consumer into different behaviour; the problem is that insofar as that's true at all, it is true only where that advocacy doesn't ruin the entertainment to begin with (cf. Birds of Prey; while it was never a very good movie, it tanked on its opening weekend far more due to annoyance with its "woke" advertising than with the film itself). SJ advocacy is not the first movement to make this mistake, either, as witness the running-gag disdain for self-consciously Christian rock music.

Myself I would have to say that while it may not be possible to define exactly how to draw the line between healthy and unhealthy consumption of/indulgence in fantasy, it is nonetheless possible to recognize fairly consistently when someone has crossed it or not. However, the likelihood of any one entertainment pastime being the thing, or the moment, that tips a given individual over that line is extremely low, and so trying to design an RPG meant to prevent this seems to me to be something of a misaimed effort. Even in cars, all the safety gadgets and functions you can install do far less to prevent accidents than simple trained competence in driving; and someone who is trying to improve a dessert's nutritional content at the expense of its taste has missed the point of having desserts at all.

I think people are who they choose to be and how they approach entertainment determines how it affects them.

One of my teen goddaughters loves monster/horror movies because she wants to be a Hollywood makeup artist so she's actually read books and taken some extracurricular classes on it and, thus, always associated the "scary" things in those films with the technical know how involved. She knows it's all fake so the only effect it has is her judgment of how well the makeup/effects were done.

A couple of my nieces, by contrast have been extremely sheltered by their extremely religious mother and find even parts of Disney animated films scary.

For me, I have long ago found I am constitutionally incapable of playing evil. I am literally not wired for it. I discovered many years ago that I'm someone who will instinctively run towards danger when I see someone in trouble (my head only catching up a couple seconds later).

I tried playing Chaotic Neutral once, but the GM declared my alignment had changed to Chaotic Good by the third session. I don't typically play paladins because most fantasy settings are polytheistic and I don't enjoy even pretend worshipping false gods, but the one consistent through-line of every PC I've ever played is that they're paladins in spirit if not in class.

My favorite superhero PC is Paragon, a hero who decided to rebel against the dark vigilante and realpolitik "heroes" of the setting to try and be a super-powered Knight in Shining-Armor (complete with a golden breastplate and white cape).

For me, roleplaying is like refining who I wish to be.

The only time I'm able to run a villain at all is as a GM, where I create them to challenge the PCs and the part I look forward to most is seeing the players defeat them utterly.

I definitely think there's something to the idea that who you choose to be in the games you play is reflective of who you are, but it's a lot more nuanced than what a lot of people with agendas try to sell with ideas like "liking violent video games = likes real-life violence."

Far more common in my experience is "likes violent games = uses them as a healthy release for negative feelings they're forced to suppress in daily life" (ex. having a thankless job, bad boss, jerk customers; all of whom you have to smile and say "yes, sir/m'am" to). There's a vet I know who's game choices can be directly correlated to the difficulties he's having with the VA over his benefits.

So, yeah... there's correlations with what you pretend, but correlation =/= causation.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122904It's a good question. It's certainly true that I've never played characters of a significantly different moral and ethical outlook from myself -- the most "ethically challenged" character I ever played was a psionically superpowered cat burglar inspired by the "Macavity" NPC idea in the first edition of GURPS Supers, who only ever stole from the idle rich who could afford the losses. Even in my AD&D1E days, when I played druid characters who in principle held a philosophically "neutral" outlook, the characters themselves always kept their word, looked out for the needy and the innocent, and only used violence in defense of their own life. And I would certainly never have played a character capable of betraying or backstabbing his allies and friends for his own benefit: not only did I know that would tick off my friends in real life to no end, the idea just had no appeal or fun for me at all. (I've never even been able to enjoy playing the game Diplomacy, because you can't win in that game without betraying allies at the right moment.)

So in practice for me, yes: in a game where I'm given my own personal druthers, I only generally "pretend to be" different versions of myself because that's where I get my enjoyment out of the game

One of the really important parts of true roleplaying is to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and make decisions based on different environmental parameters, including the influence of various Npc's.

The original Judges Guild D&D character sheets included alignment as one of the statistics that one randomly rolled up during character generation. For awhile we played that you had to play the alignment that you randomly rolled when the game began.

With original D&D alignment was always seen as a variable, not a fixed outlook on life. Characters by their actions and conduct in game determined what their current chosen alignment was, and it was up to the GM to decide if an action would change or alter the players alignments resulting in new benefits, or a lack thereof, for their characters. I have not seen any RPG game system except for Nobilis since OD&D that had built-in mechanics for dealing with variable character alignment.

I do run campaigns where characters can be evil. I don't run games that promote misery tourism, however I do want players to be able to explore especially trying circumstances, or events  that have questionable moral or ethical incidents included, so that they can learn and see for themselves the benefits of making sound ethical and moral decisions.

The last game I ran like this was an online Star Wars game in 2018 where the Players were all Sith or Imperial Troopers, and the campaign began at the conclusion of the Battle of Endor, When Darth Vader was killed by the Emperor. The players begin as loyal subjects of an Empire completely devoted to law and order, and the game begins as they learn of the Death of both the Emperor, and their leader, Darth Vader. They find they are now being hunted by Rebels, and betrayed by other Imperials. This game lasted about five months, and didn't end well, but it was a real eye opener for most of the players. What they learned was, killing each other, and harming the innocent in the name of the law during their journey to reforge the Empire was not "fun" as they had originally anticipated, and in fact it turned out to be a real chore, and a curse that hung like a millstone around their necks.

One thing I do object strenuously to, is the player that always wants to play an evil character. I find that very unsettling, and will try to discourage that behavior in favor of a more balanced approach.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1122907One of the really important parts of true roleplaying is to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and make decisions based on different environmental parameters, including the influence of various Npc's.

This actually highlights what I think is one of the key differences in approach on the topic.

As a life skill, I completely agree that learning to see things from someone else's perspective, and to understand why someone in different circumstances may make different choices from your own, is a critical part of healthy psychological and emotional development. However, the minute this is asserted to be an indispensably important and/or morally obligatory element of one's leisure entertainment, I balk. In my view, the moment something else becomes more important than the fun factor, what you're doing is no longer a game: it's a tool, which was designed for ends which may not be the consumer's. (That doesn't mean a game or story can't teach valuable lessons; it only means it has to put the entertainment first, not the teaching.)

I've always believed that the only reason one should ever need to give for refusing to play a particular game is "I don't find this fun," without requiring further explanation or justification. Anything you're obliged in any sense to do without caring about whether it's fun or not is, by definition, neither entertainment nor a game.

Thing is, there's a person playing a character, and then there's That Guy who's clearly got something loose upstairs and is trying to live out some weird fantasy using the character as an excuse.  I think a lot of us have encountered That Guy at some point in our gaming lives.  It's not hard to tell the difference between a player who's doing some kind of zany character concept and a person who keeps trying to steer into fringey territory.

Not even close, I play to get away from real life, why would I want to play myself?

I'm able to play a monster, I mean a real one not sparkly angsty vampires, because I can tell the difference between fiction and reality. In the same way I'm able to exterminate sentient being because in that game they are pure evil.

As for "That Guy" only once did I encounter someone like that in a game, was readily expelled from the group. But, I think if you play at conventions/game stores you're more likely to find it, because you can't properly vet the players and there are a lot of lunatics out there, both the SocJus Zealots and their mirror image from the monotheistic religions.

If you can't tell fantasy from reality and are unable to feel empathy towards anybody not yourself then you shouldn't be playing pretend, you should be at the minimum under therapy and probably committed to the loony bin.

I stopped watching Intervention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(TV_series)) when I realized I was getting entertainment out of other people's suffering.
Kinda sorta the same thing with L&O: SVU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit), except the show got so silly it wasn't worth watching anymore, anyway.

But...

I still like Rest Stop. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_Stop_(film)) I think everyone has their own line, and it's probably a fuzzy line at that.

I've played "evil" characters, and characters I wouldn't necessarily agree with in real life. Part of the fun is pretending to be someone who isn't like me.

One of the most fun characters I've ever played was a religious fanatic paladin, self-righteous and hypocrite, yet very heroic, paladin.

He was willing to turn a blind eye to most sins committed by the church, but also willing to sacrifice himself to save random peasants.

I played evil - sadistic - PCs in the past. It was fun, but not I'd be willing to do again, I think.

I also played righteous characters straight. And mercenaries with good tendencies. And a dwarf who was more interested in trading goods than adventuring.

I don't think this means anything about me.

The paladin could either be taking my own religious beliefs to the extreme (making me some kind of religious nut?), or making fun of religion in general (making me some kind of agnostic or cynic?).

My evil PCs mean I was an evil person in my youth, and have now reformed? I don't think so.

Most of this is exploring. Exploring characters, exploring possibilities.

It makes RPGs more fun. I have some friends who always play the same kind of character, and that gets a bit boring from time to time.

You know, like that guy who always wants to be a ninja, and when invited to play Call of Cthulhu creates an inmate escaped from the insane asylum that thinks he is a ninja?

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1122917It makes RPGs more fun. I have some friends who always play the same kind of character, and that gets a bit boring from time to time.

Yeah, this sort of thing bugs me with people I play with regularly. My brother for instance will occasionally step out of his wheelhouse or make exceptions for a given campaign style (I said this is a gritty game about war, no you cannot play an eccentric pole dancer!), but 98% of the time he plays some variant of a smarmy self-insert power fantasy with a nearly identical personality (the "walking quip"). It can get tiresome GM'ing for those types sometimes as you come to know every move they'll make before they do and it feels a bit like going through the motions. I prefer some variety in my own characters, and those of others.

That said, at the end of the day it's impossible to REALLY play a different person from yourself (at least entirely), and I don't begrudge people who just want to play themselves "but a wizard" and blow up goblins. I get that mentality. Roleplaying isn't method acting. But I like exploring different mindsets, motivations and personalities and roleplaying "seriously" whenever I can. It's not always easy to obtain but it is certainly easier in long-term campaigns where you have time to breathe and adjust, entrenching yourself in and evolving a fresh character persona over weeks and months. IMO that is where roleplaying really "comes alive" and the beginnings of campaigns I find somewhat lackluster and rocky by comparison before the group gets focused, even though new beginnings can be fun in their own right. Over the long term with the same players and characters, you get to a point where you really immerse together and things just... flow. Both campaign and character-wise.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1122917One of the most fun characters I've ever played was a religious fanatic paladin, self-righteous and hypocrite, yet very heroic, paladin.

He was willing to turn a blind eye to most sins committed by the church, but also willing to sacrifice himself to save random peasants.

I played evil - sadistic - PCs in the past. It was fun, but not I'd be willing to do again, I think.

I also played righteous characters straight. And mercenaries with good tendencies. And a dwarf who was more interested in trading goods than adventuring.

I don't think this means anything about me.

The paladin could either be taking my own religious beliefs to the extreme (making me some kind of religious nut?), or making fun of religion in general (making me some kind of agnostic or cynic?).

My evil PCs mean I was an evil person in my youth, and have now reformed? I don't think so.

Most of this is exploring. Exploring characters, exploring possibilities.

It makes RPGs more fun. I have some friends who always play the same kind of character, and that gets a bit boring from time to time.

You know, like that guy who always wants to be a ninja, and when invited to play Call of Cthulhu creates an inmate escaped from the insane asylum that thinks he is a ninja?

What are you some kind of Ninjaphobic!? You bigot! :D

I can't bring myself to play evil characters. I'm the sort of person whose paladin PC would convert orcs to Christianity, adopt goblin babies, and figure out how to raise demons to angels.

Greetings!

I always enjoy riding at the right hand of Ghenghis Khan.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1122926Greetings!

I always enjoy riding at the right hand of Ghenghis Khan.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I bet you think Temujin was evil. The guy had a rough childhood.

I think the line is like obscenity, as ruled per US constitution: "you know it when you see it" and "it is a function of the community's mores." The trouble with that answer is it becomes a negotiation in a public and private sphere, in an individual and social level. Which feels like a cop-out to some because suddenly everywhere has its own 'aesthetic logic'. :o

:cool: But in reality it asks people to do two very complicated things: a) have a confident individuality that has judgment in respecting the negotiated power of the area, yet b) also its own strength of character in expressing what does not cross boundaries into actual harm. Thankfully our USA legal system is quite well-argued on where our rights and boundaries intersect, and what is defined as harm. (It's like we have laws expecting adults to behave like adults whenever possible. ;))

As much as any social movement of Nanny Harpies, regardless of their political origin, may protest ("for the children," "changing the -archies narrative") thoughts, feelings, and Imagination-Land do not constitute an assault requiring redress. :) And this is why mimes are brave defenders on the front lines of our civil liberties. :cool: :p

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1122931The guy had a rough childhood.

I heard that was just a public-relations Khan job.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1122901I would also say that the kind of people who get all bent out of shape about such things in the culture war are the type of people that probably shouldn't play RPGs--at least not without talking to their therapist first. :)

These are the type of people that should not be allowed near RPGs, be told a story, watch movies or plays, play board games, or even read a book.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122898My thoughts on the matter aren't fully baked at the moment, and probably won't be for awhile. There's definitely a middle ground here, and it may just be that it's different for everyone. So until then I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

Some observations from years of seeing stuff first hand and hearing from others or reading accounts going back to the 1910s.

RPGs and LARPs and Acting and even Costuming/Cosplay can be a great thing for people. This has been known quite a long time. Actually before RPGs existed. It is why proto LARPs originated in schoolastic activities before D&D came out. Studies were being done and showing that this sort of "simulation" as they were termed at the time, were potentially great learning tools and it was used all across the US. Since then these sim's have filtered into some business orientations as well, especially after RPGs hit the scene.

Problem though. And this is the flip-side of the SJW loonacy...

Some people take it too far. Some go way too far. Its NOT rare either. The main problem are the "immersion" fanatics. Not the ones that just like some immersion. These nuts take it to extremes. They want to BE the character. This pops up ALOT with LARPs as its so much more physical and its gained an appalling following over in europe where "Its not real unless you BLEED!" and the insane push for more and more "realisim" in the violence to the point that some LARPs are anything but safe.

I suspect this will carry over into VRmmos once they get to the full dive technology. (Bemusingly Overlord notes that VR in that setting specifically lacked sensory inputs to curtail this.)

And I've seen people for whom the character and the player start to blur. Mostly LARP, but a few cases noted in RPGing.

But this is not what the SJWs and nuts out there are really on about usually. Their rally is that just playing something casually MAKES you that thing. Or that you Like or DO those things for real. Or at least want to. And you MUST BE STOPPED! To protect others of course. Most are just insane and should never be allowed near anything really as they can and will hallucinate boogymen in anything.

Some of this stems from the anti-violence (anti anything really) nuts out there who want to sanitize everything. This is part of the cyclic surge of these Moral Guardians about every 20 years. Books, Comic Books, Movies, Cartoons, RPGs, Video Games, Fan Art, etc ad nausium as each surge adds some new burgeoning media to the great big list of "CENSORED!"

QuoteTo be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

Psychological research strongly suggests that there is no such thing as "who we are". There is instead just "what we do in certain situations". E.g. our behavior is largely a function of the situation. This article has an extensive discussion of the many findings on this topic, with links to more details. We repeatedly fool ourselves into thinking people "really are" a certain way, when really virtually everyone is just certain ways in certain situations. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201404/one-self-or-many-selves

Who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game* can only tell us one thing, and that's who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game*.  Drawing further conclusions from there about what a person "is really like" is unwarranted and unjustifiable by psychological science.

One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

This isn't going to be the only consideration, but in my experience, players who easily abuse the characters of other players tend to be arseholes in real life as well. The ones who make the excuse that they're 'just playing my character/alignment'. (Chaotic 'good' is no exception, sadly; if anything it's an extra excuse to get away with sociopathy, when it comes to such players.) The ones who are the reason why 'you never let that damn thief out of sight! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa2ucfgVgQ)'

There's probably some leeway for large player pools, like the roster of dozens of potential players that Gygax had, where you could be adventuring with a different combination of people each session. But if you've got a group of 4-8 players, usually it's expected that you'll have each others' backs in the dungeon, be true companions, etc.

Beyond that? If someone can't tell that make-believe is make-believe and starts acting out the Dark Dungeons Chick tract, they should be eased out of the RPG sessions, and perhaps into therapy.

-Albert the Absentminded

Ask Heath Ledger.

Method actors. Stage or screen can suffer this. They usually recover. But while they are "the character" it can get progressively bad. Others can easily differentiate and switch it on and off.

As with everything whats good to one person is poison to another.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122898My thoughts on the matter aren't fully baked at the moment, and probably won't be for awhile. There's definitely a middle ground here, and it may just be that it's different for everyone. So until then I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

Well, I think the culture war in RPGs has as much to do with players not having to put up with actual bigotry and exclusion at the table--be that from other players, the game/setting itself--as it does with the idea that people who play RPGs are somehow acting out real aspects of their subconscious personalities in some sort of Freudian psychodrama. I am more or less on board with the first part. It's the latter issue that I am really amazed about. So, if you like playing characters that do horrible things or who are horrible people, then somehow, somewhere deep down inside you, you are harbouring those feelings and the potential for actually behaving like that. Which seems ludicrous for reasons that I think are entirely obvious, at least on the face of it.

Isn't the only real measure of virtue and goodness actual, you know, behavior? I could be thinking all sorts of things. I could be tempted to cheat on my wife. I could be tempted to steal, or lie, or maybe I see a black guy walking towards me on the sidewalk and I could feel threatened. But I don't actually act any of those inside thoughts. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't lie, steal, and I don't cross the street to get away from anyone.  Isn't that the most we can ask from anyone? Anything more would require thought police and virtue signalling.

Oh crap.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1122935I think the line is like obscenity, as ruled per US constitution: "you know it when you see it"

Nit: that's Justice Potter Stewart, not the Constitution itself. :D

I've been coincidentally thinking about this recently because I consciously tried to play a different character in my new game... except there's still still a strong streak of stubbornness, determination, loyalty, and dedication, which are all things that I value in myself when I am at my best. And that seem to show up in my characters.

Is it that the character calls for it, so I'm just doing it right? Or is it that one can't step out of one's self, really? On the other hand, without a little of those things, there's no adventure, either.

The "I can't play evil characters" thing rings true with me too. I can't even play Cards Against Humanity.

Of course, then I scroll down the thread and see this...

Quote from: amacris;1122943Psychological research strongly suggests that there is no such thing as "who we are". There is instead just "what we do in certain situations". E.g. our behavior is largely a function of the situation. This article has an extensive discussion of the many findings on this topic, with links to more details. We repeatedly fool ourselves into thinking people "really are" a certain way, when really virtually everyone is just certain ways in certain situations. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201404/one-self-or-many-selves

Who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game* can only tell us one thing, and that's who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game*.  Drawing further conclusions from there about what a person "is really like" is unwarranted and unjustifiable by psychological science.

One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

So maybe the actual boundaries are each person's definition of "the situation" -- maybe because I think about RPGs in terms of adventure, heroism, and experiencing history, I tend to pull out the personality attributes I associate with that.

"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."

Now quit cluttering up my mental life, you bunch of p-zombies.

" Are You What You Pretend To Be? "

Obviously not, because then it wouldn't be pretend would it?

(This place takes naval gazing to a new level sometimes.....)

Quote from: RandyB;1122946Ask Heath Ledger.

Interesting that you brought this up. His performance in The Dark Knight was remarkable and excellent. In the uncut version which is rarely shown these days, the Joker actually had a better set of morals than Batman, and James Gordon, as well as Harvey Dent. The Joker in this movie was a much better crime fighter than Batman was. It was a phenomenal performance.

Heath Ledger was messed up by Hollywood and busloads of money, which has an interesting effect on people who may not have always had money. I doubt his demise had much to do with his method acting, and much more to do with the non-movie people he regularly hung out with.

Which brings us back to gamers and gaming, and gamers that focus mostly on fun and well balanced play, instead of on being evil.

Quote from: amacris;1122943Psychological research strongly suggests that there is no such thing as "who we are". There is instead just "what we do in certain situations". E.g. our behavior is largely a function of the situation.

One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

Certainly true. But are players like this outliers or representative?

I have to admit, my own bet -- based on my own example and observations -- is that in practice behaviour patterns by situation do cleave more closely together than this. And if "how we behave in certain situations" is consistent when the situations are analogous enough, then "how we behave" is just another term for "who we are".

That said, the key caveat is, of course, that "cleave more closely" is not the same as "identical", or even "predictable enough that it justifies pre-emptively judging someone". And "analogous enough" also covers a lot of extremely variable-by-individual ground. But if the patterns weren't consistent enough to sometimes be useful, we wouldn't have developed the predilection for spotting them.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1122963"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."

Now quit cluttering up my mental life, you bunch of p-zombies.

I'll go back into my Chinese Room if you will. ;)

I generally do not like RPGs (or LARPS) where you play yourself or a modified version. I've found most players incapable of building themselves as a PC without either turning themselves into superheroes in an ego explosion or envisioning themselves as utter shmucks in the effort to appear the most honest. I was in one hilariously horrid campaign where we played EACH OTHER and it was such a clusterfuck.

When I make a character, I always pick a prime trait that I don't possess. I know that lots of my personality is gonna come out in roleplay unless I'm in full actor mode, so its helpful for me to have that Not-Me Prime Trait to focus the character around.

For example, in real life, I'm an agnostic who laughs at Climate Change as a hoax. So, playing a Gaia-worshiping Werewolf in full climate panic is great fun. Same with playing an evangelical cleric devoted beyond reason to his god. Or a highly dexterous elf who doesn't need to lay off the cheeseburgers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122973I generally do not like RPGs (or LARPS) where you play yourself or a modified version. I've found most players incapable of building themselves as a PC without either turning themselves into superheroes in an ego explosion or envisioning themselves as utter shmucks in the effort to appear the most honest. I was in one hilariously horrid campaign where we played EACH OTHER and it was such a clusterfuck.

Oh, god, I remember one time we decided to make up ourselves as player characters, in Call of Cthulhu of all things. It was such a bad idea. I'm not sure which was more disturbing: getting murdered by cultists while playing yourself, or explaining to the GM why you as a character should be good at killing stuff.

In general, my gaming groups have been cautious about who they let in, so we didn't have problems with actual sickos. It tended to be more a matter of people blindly imitating heroic stereotypes without really grasping what the effects of that kind of behavior would be in reality. Like "I want to have my character go to a bar and carouse and gamble" from someone who doesn't go to bars in real life, and really just wanted to act out something from a Conan or Burt Reynolds movie.

Frankly, there aren't a lot of Burt Reynolds characters I'd want to have for a neighbor or a coworker.

This caused immediate friction with players who had been to drinking parties, and didn't care for them, and got back into roleplaying in college so they'd have something to do on Saturday nights instead of dealing with annoying drunks.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122972I'll go back into my Chinese Room if you will. ;)

Searle is a disingenuous dick.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1122978Searle is a disingenuous dick.

Why do you say that? As I understood it, the Chinese Room is a thought experiment like Schrodinger's Cat; it's designed to demonstrate the absurdity of materialist strong AI theory, not its justification. (Unless that is itself the dickishness you mean?)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122979Why do you say that?

Because it's true.

QuoteAs I understood it, the Chinese Room is a thought experiment like Schrodinger's Cat; it's designed to demonstrate the absurdity of materialist strong AI theory, not its justification. (Unless that is itself the dickishness you mean?)

Fine, I guess we're having this conversation.

What is special about the human brain, that it gives rise to a self-aware mental state? That is not to say that bats do not - presumably - have subjective conscious experience, it seems safe to assume that they most likely do, though do keep Nagel in mind (ha). However humans in particular have mental qualities that appear to put us a level above the rest of the animal kingdom, and it is entirely natural to investigate that.

There are two options: we are either special, in the sense that we are privileged in some fashion on some level, or we are not.

By "special" I mean to imply that that position holds that the means by which we have our higher cognitive functions is not directly linked to the state of our brains. Cartesian Dualism would be an example, though I find that position ontologically unlikely. Brains are - cosmically speaking - relatively simple machines, and while we haven't gotten a connectome yet, doing so is entirely within the realm of possibility. We've already identified significant areas of the brain specialized for various tasks (see Broca's and Wernicke's areas, among others), which are largely universal across human subjects.

In short, I am of the opinion that there is nothing special about brains. Minds are natural products of some combination of neurological and hormonal activity, and our particular flavor of mind - one that is self-aware, with our various higher cognitive functions - is just a fluke of genetics and evolution. It is entirely sensible that what nature can build, we can design.

Searle's assertion that no component of the Chinese Room understands Chinese misses the point that the system as a whole "understands" Chinese. Nevermind that the term "understand" is already nebulous and ill-defined in that context. Hell, the existence of those stupid Amazon machines that do NLP when you ask them to play music or buy trinkets and manage to follow your instructions more than half the time implies that the system "understands" English. I will generally grant that yes, the machine doesn't have the same kind of grasp of the meanings of the words as we do, what with vectorization being weird and the fact that we don't have a machine with all the modalities of a human at the moment, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Alexa is to strong AI what a squirrel might be to us.

Quote from: jeff37923;1122967" Are You What You Pretend To Be? "

Obviously not, because then it wouldn't be pretend would it?

(This place takes naval gazing to a new level sometimes.....)

Except that is the problem. There are some that want to, try to, or actually do start blurring the line between character and player.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122973I generally do not like RPGs (or LARPS) where you play yourself or a modified version. I've found most players incapable of building themselves as a PC without either turning themselves into superheroes in an ego explosion or envisioning themselves as utter shmucks in the effort to appear the most honest. I was in one hilariously horrid campaign where we played EACH OTHER and it was such a clusterfuck.

Oh the first LARP I ever attended we were playing ourselves at a con playing an RPG. Then our actual characters jumped into our bodies from the future and the LARP technically began from there. It was a pretty innovative approach and the rest of the players did not know what was going on. Some were playing characters attending an RPG session at a convention. The time traveller players were the exception.

My old copy of Villains & Vigilantes actually has chargen start with you statting yourself out. I think TSR's MSH and TORG had that as an option too?

Quote from: Omega;1122997Oh the first LARP I ever attended we were playing ourselves at a con playing an RPG.

I actually had a badge made for the LARPs that the Living Arcanis team ran that said "My PC has Bluff +X, Diplomacy +Y, Intimidate +Z; the player does not."

The team in charge actually said, "Your character's stats don't matter. You have to actually say it yourself."

"Then why the hell are you having us play our characters? What's the point of playing a social character if my Charisma 18 and appropriate skills don't actually do anything in the biggest social-based adventures of the Living campaign that you actually hold to determine how the political events of the next season's modules will unfold?"

If you want to make the players actually act everything out and solve actual puzzles themselves, don't use a system that gives stats to their mental/social abilities.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1122981I guess we're having this conversation.

No need to if you don't want to; I was just curious about the rather vehement response. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123002I was just curious about the rather vehement response.

At least you didn't bring up Hume.

I never play idealized versions of myself, and most of my characters possess various traits that are significantly different than me (such as most of them being the opposite sex). That being said, in terms of personality and morality and such, I usually find it easier to play "good" or virtuous characters than evil characters. But my "virtuous" characters are usually more virtuous than I usually am in real life, and they may still have some believes I don't (such as different religious/spiritual or ideological believes, etc.). I think part of the reason for that is that most stories involving action-adventure tend to portray virtuous characters, or characters of questionable morality that end up turning a leaf and being virtuous by the end (like Riddick in Pitch Black). So if you're falling back on entertainment media for inspiration (either consciously or subconsciously) it tends to be easier to conjure up virtuous personalities (or people who want to/end up being virtuous) when coming up with your character's behavior than not, because protagonists are usually written to have redeeming qualities, even if they start out as questionable individuals.

Writing adventures with "virtuous" characters in mind (rescue the hostages, recover a stolen artifact, stop the evil sorcerer from summoning a demon hoard, etc.) also tends to be easier than writing adventures for "evil" or criminal characters, which tends to incentivize playing "good" characters.

I have had issues with players who like to play "evil" characters, though. I don't think that these people are necessarily "evil" or criminal "deep down", however. I just think that different people look for different things in RPGs and some people take it more seriously than others or have a better grasp of RP and world immersion. And players who play "stupid evil" characters tend to come from the perspective of "this isn't real/I can get away with anything!", so they end up making stupid decisions and derailing the game with random killing and stealing cuz they're "evil", but the player doesn't know how to think things through or care enough about disrupting other's play.

As far as being what you pretend,

Quote from: Albert the Absentminded;1122944This isn't going to be the only consideration, but in my experience, players who easily abuse the characters of other players tend to be arseholes in real life as well. The ones who make the excuse that they're 'just playing my character/alignment'. (Chaotic 'good' is no exception, sadly; if anything it's an extra excuse to get away with sociopathy, when it comes to such players.) The ones who are the reason why 'you never let that damn thief out of sight! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa2ucfgVgQ)'

Quote from: amacris;1122943One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

I think this is about mixing up causality and correlation. Yes, assholes in real life will tend to play asshole characters. Since there are plenty of assholes in real life, that means there's a fair chance that an asshole character means an asshole player. But that's not causal. There are plenty of perfectly nice players who can have a fun time playing asshole characters. It's a frickin game - people can play all sorts of things that they're not. One of my good friends loves to play Star Wars Imperials - it doesn't make him an evil Sith in real life.

And judging people for the games they play happens across many tastes in gaming.


On an off-topic note,

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1122981Searle's assertion that no component of the Chinese Room understands Chinese misses the point that the system as a whole "understands" Chinese. Nevermind that the term "understand" is already nebulous and ill-defined in that context. Hell, the existence of those stupid Amazon machines that do NLP when you ask them to play music or buy trinkets and manage to follow your instructions more than half the time implies that the system "understands" English. I will generally grant that yes, the machine doesn't have the same kind of grasp of the meanings of the words as we do, what with vectorization being weird and the fact that we don't have a machine with all the modalities of a human at the moment, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Alexa is to strong AI what a squirrel might be to us.

Exactly. Searle suggests that being able to produce answers about a horse wouldn't give you any real understanding of a horse, but that's because it's asking you to picture an AI as a blind person who's been locked in a room all their life. If it was a true AI with human-level knowledge and capacity, then it would have senses and sense memory -- not just words. It would demonstrate understanding of a horse by being able to identify a horse by it's appearance and behavior. Studying the workings of such a true AI, even in Chinese, one could figure out how visual images are processed and thus what a horse looks like. Or how sounds are processed and thus what a horse sounds like. And so forth.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122973I generally do not like RPGs (or LARPS) where you play yourself or a modified version. I've found most players incapable of building themselves as a PC without either turning themselves into superheroes in an ego explosion or envisioning themselves as utter shmucks in the effort to appear the most honest. I was in one hilariously horrid campaign where we played EACH OTHER and it was such a clusterfuck.

When I make a character, I always pick a prime trait that I don't possess. I know that lots of my personality is gonna come out in roleplay unless I'm in full actor mode, so its helpful for me to have that Not-Me Prime Trait to focus the character around.

For example, in real life, I'm an agnostic who laughs at Climate Change as a hoax. So, playing a Gaia-worshiping Werewolf in full climate panic is great fun. Same with playing an evangelical cleric devoted beyond reason to his god. Or a highly dexterous elf who doesn't need to lay off the cheeseburgers.

I remember a campaign where the GM handed Jack and I each a character sheet and said "You are playing each other." It was a hoot until I, his character, got us both killed but he, my character, got to say "This is another fine mess you've gotten us int..."

I've played myself in a few games (WoD) had a good time. I became a Black Spiral Dancer... but you know... dancing the Black Spiral can be FUN. (not really. mistakes were made.) But not once did I ever entertain the idea of doing any of the horrors I committed while dedicating myself to the corrupting powers of the Wyrm. You know... because it's *not* real.

Honestly, this is a WEIRD topic. Because *no* one is playing "themselves" in a game of makebelieve. What is being bandied about is the recognition that a LOT of fucked up people with the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy have coalesced in this hobby and *made* it weird.

It doesn't help that the general lack of critical thinking skills alongside a steady diet of pathological forms of post-modernism has cauterized any capacity for critical thinking development, has turbo-charged this phenomenon.

An awful lot of people need to get away from Social Media, stop huffing their farts, play the MMO 'Outside' and chill the fuck out.

QuoteSearle's assertion that no component of the Chinese Room understands Chinese misses the point that the system as a whole "understands" Chinese. Nevermind that the term "understand" is already nebulous and ill-defined in that context. Hell, the existence of those stupid Amazon machines that do NLP when you ask them to play music or buy trinkets and manage to follow your instructions more than half the time implies that the system "understands" English. I will generally grant that yes, the machine doesn't have the same kind of grasp of the meanings of the words as we do, what with vectorization being weird and the fact that we don't have a machine with all the modalities of a human at the moment, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Alexa is to strong AI what a squirrel might be to us.

QuoteExactly. Searle suggests that being able to produce answers about a horse wouldn't give you any real understanding of a horse, but that's because it's asking you to picture an AI as a blind person who's been locked in a room all their life. If it was a true AI with human-level knowledge and capacity, then it would have senses and sense memory -- not just words. It would demonstrate understanding of a horse by being able to identify a horse by it's appearance and behavior. Studying the workings of such a true AI, even in Chinese, one could figure out how visual images are processed and thus what a horse looks like. Or how sounds are processed and thus what a horse sounds like. And so forth.

Searle's isn't "missing the point" that the system as a whole "understand" Chinese, and if you think that's a serious rebuttal of Searle's argument you haven't done your homework. All you've done is offer up the discredited "system reply" to Searles, which has been well-rebutted by Searles himself, Clark, Chalmers, Copeland, Harnad... in the 1980s. Virtually no serious philosophers defend that argument anymore.

The reason no one defends it is that it entirely misses the point. What Searles is really pointing out is that what appears to be "understanding" from a third-party perspective has been detached from the subjective first-person experience (qualia) of understanding. In the Chinese Room, a third-party interacting with the room sees evidence that the Chinese Room system understands Chinese. However, there is nothing in the Chinese Room that is experiencing the qualia of understanding. We humans, on the other hand, DO experience the qualia of understanding. Therefore we are not functioning as Chinese Rooms. There is something going on that a purely algorithmic approach to following instructions does not have.

As Searles wrote in 1980: "The thrust of the argument is that it couldn't be just computational processes and their output because the computational processes and their output can exist without the cognitive state."

Quote from: amacris;1123015Searle's isn't "missing the point" that the system as a whole "understand" Chinese, and if you think that's a serious rebuttal of Searle's argument you haven't done your homework. All you've done is offer up the discredited "system reply" to Searles, which has been well-rebutted by Searles himself, Clark, Chalmers, Copeland, Harnad... in the 1980s. Virtually no serious philosophers defend that argument anymore.

The reason no one defends it is that it entirely misses the point. What Searles is really pointing out is that what appears to be "understanding" from a third-party perspective has been detached from the subjective first-person experience (qualia) of understanding. In the Chinese Room, a third-party interacting with the room sees evidence that the Chinese Room system understands Chinese. However, there is nothing in the Chinese Room that is experiencing the qualia of understanding. We humans, on the other hand, DO experience the qualia of understanding. Therefore we are not functioning as Chinese Rooms. There is something going on that a purely algorithmic approach to following instructions does not have.

As Searles wrote in 1980: "The thrust of the argument is that it couldn't be just computational processes and their output because the computational processes and their output can exist without the cognitive state."

But would the Chinese room play an evil PC?

We were never into evil player characters, but since our gaming is influenced more by swords and sorcery than by Tolkienesque high fantasy, I suppose we do often play amoral PCs in the same sense that most of the famous classic swords and sorcery heroes were fairly amoral. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser and Conan never made any bones about the fact that they were straight up thieves when it suited them.

Although maybe for my next character I'll play a Chinese room...

Quote from: Omega;1122995Except that is the problem. There are some that want to, try to, or actually do start blurring the line between character and player.

To do so causes it to stop being a game and start being a mental disorder. Wasn't Rona Jaffe's Mazes and Monsters based on that premise?

Quote from: amacris;1123015However, there is nothing in the Chinese Room that is experiencing the qualia of understanding. We humans, on the other hand, DO experience the qualia of understanding. Therefore we are not functioning as Chinese Rooms. There is something going on that a purely algorithmic approach to following instructions does not have.

Prove to me you have subjective conscious experience, and an accompanying mental life that can experience this qualia.

When I play RPGs it is more like myself playing a role, Wizard, Fighter etc rather then me pretending to be Gandolf the Grey.

I have not played any Evil characters.  One of my friends had a character that he claimed was Evil but in reality was just him thinking up different "evil" reasons for doing the same thing that the other Good members of the party were doing.  Saving the village?  Well it is just because I want to control the village as part of my Evil empire.  

If I was going to play an Evil campaign then I would need a party that was much more proactive then the standard party.  A successful Evil party needs an overarching goal to aim towards rather then passively reacting to the plot hook of the week.

Quote from: Chris24601;1123001I actually had a badge made for the LARPs that the Living Arcanis team ran that said "My PC has Bluff +X, Diplomacy +Y, Intimidate +Z; the player does not."

The team in charge actually said, "Your character's stats don't matter. You have to actually say it yourself."

"Then why the hell are you having us play our characters? What's the point of playing a social character if my Charisma 18 and appropriate skills don't actually do anything in the biggest social-based adventures of the Living campaign that you actually hold to determine how the political events of the next season's modules will unfold?"

If you want to make the players actually act everything out and solve actual puzzles themselves, don't use a system that gives stats to their mental/social abilities.

Yeah seen a few that do that, which makes having stats pointless. At the very least the stats should give a bonus to success. But as usual, varies massively from one game to the next. Some pretty much have no system at all. Others are RPGs on legs and some sort of randomizer system is used for some actions. Similarly it bugs me when a LARP has a system for armour. But then makes you wear the real thing to get any points. Whats the point in an artificial system that only works if you have the real object rather than a prop?

I suspect its because these are usually not actual game designers and they are just kit-bashing stuff willy nilly without really considering the actual functionality. Looks good on paper. Not in practice.

Cthulhu LIVE just has the EDU, DEX, CON and POW stats, plus Magic points, Wound points Luck points and Sanity. Dex covering things like skilled fine manipulation of objects, sleight of hand, etc. The rest is on the players.

Extending a little more the off-topic branch,

Quote from: jhkimExactly. Searle suggests that being able to produce answers about a horse wouldn't give you any real understanding of a horse, but that's because it's asking you to picture an AI as a blind person who's been locked in a room all their life. If it was a true AI with human-level knowledge and capacity, then it would have senses and sense memory -- not just words. It would demonstrate understanding of a horse by being able to identify a horse by it's appearance and behavior. Studying the workings of such a true AI, even in Chinese, one could figure out how visual images are processed and thus what a horse looks like. Or how sounds are processed and thus what a horse sounds like.

Quote from: amacris;1123015What Searles is really pointing out is that what appears to be "understanding" from a third-party perspective has been detached from the subjective first-person experience (qualia) of understanding. In the Chinese Room, a third-party interacting with the room sees evidence that the Chinese Room system understands Chinese. However, there is nothing in the Chinese Room that is experiencing the qualia of understanding. We humans, on the other hand, DO experience the qualia of understanding. Therefore we are not functioning as Chinese Rooms. There is something going on that a purely algorithmic approach to following instructions does not have.

As Searles wrote in 1980: "The thrust of the argument is that it couldn't be just computational processes and their output because the computational processes and their output can exist without the cognitive state."

If you're just going to assert by fiat that computers can't have understanding, then the Chinese room analogy is pointless. Just stick with the assertion and don't bother with the Chinese room. If the analogy has a point, then people should be able to analyze it and point out problems with the argument.

My problem with the analogy is that it relies on picturing the hypothetical AI as something that only interacts in words back and forth. That is the equivalent of a blind person who has lived their entire life locked inside a box. That blind person indeed has no understand of what a horse is - they have never seen a horse or touched a horse. I think it's correct to say that both the Chinese room and the blind-person-in-a-box have no understanding of a horse.

However, a true AI has more than just word rules. It can understand images as well as visualize and draw, and use other senses. If someone were operating rules in a Chinese-plus-other-senses room, then they could learn from the patterns of memory and encoded skills associated with "horse" to infer about what a horse really is.

Quote from: jhkim;1123047If you're just going to assert by fiat that computers can't have understanding, then the Chinese room analogy is pointless. Just stick with the assertion and don't bother with the Chinese room. If the analogy has a point, then people should be able to analyze it and point out problems with the argument.

The assertion isn't by fiat. You (presumably) have a definite sense of awareness, and not only that, but it's reflective onto itself (so you're aware that you're aware; you're aware that you're aware you're aware; etc). The notion that we have subjective conscious experience is fucking weird to begin with and doesn't seem to have a direct purpose, in terms of adaptational utility, and we're not entirely certain where it stems from.

So the thing with the Chinese Room is that, externally, the system as a whole is indiscernable from a human that knows Chinese. But we get the sense that it's an incomplete picture, that there's something missing, specifically because of the whole subjective conscious experience deal and we know what it "feels like" to know a language, and the Chinese Room doesn't "feel like" it knows Chinese (I'm using quotes here to try to convey a difficult concept, not in a sarcastic/mocking sense).

A reasonably similar problem to this would be the Gettier Problem. We can build scenarios in which a person "knows" a fact that seems to hit the traditional definition of knowledge (true justified belief), yet the situation seems off and we're hesitant to call it knowledge. However we find it difficult to pin down exactly why that is, which is why (to my knowledge) the Gettier Problem remains unsolved. So the Chinese Room looks like it knows Chinese, but we feel like there's something not quite right about it, like it's missing something even if it's communicating perfectly sensibly in the language.

Personally I am of the opinion that that feeling is a cognitive bias, and that there are a number of holes with the theory: specifically, I don't give a shit if Plato him-fucking-self showed up and claimed the systems argument is wrong, I'm still going to take that stance, because I don't think the Chinese Room in itself is a sufficient representation of the system as a whole of what a sapient free-willed thinking being is.

QuoteMy problem with the analogy is that it relies on picturing the hypothetical AI as something that only interacts in words back and forth. That is the equivalent of a blind person who has lived their entire life locked inside a box. That blind person indeed has no understand of what a horse is - they have never seen a horse or touched a horse. I think it's correct to say that both the Chinese room and the blind-person-in-a-box have no understanding of a horse.

I think you're getting too hung-up on sense data, though I will generally agree that an AI would need to be able to interact with the world in order to "develop" properly. Overall I think the issue is that the Chinese Room is not equivalent to a mind, it's equivalent to the language centers in your brain. It's just a piece of a significantly larger whole and has to be taken in context.

I'm increasingly skeptical of the "true AI" ever becoming a reality as envisioned. AKA, a computerized human.

Instead, I suspect that a "self-aware AI" will be quite alien in its awareness. It may communicate effectively with us meatbags, but how it reaches A to Z will not be based our understanding of memory and thinking skills.

Oh, AI is convincing people to see invisible aliens.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a30705013/ai-extraterrestrials/

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1123051So the thing with the Chinese Room is that, externally, the system as a whole is indiscernable from a human that knows Chinese. But we get the sense that it's an incomplete picture, that there's something missing, specifically because of the whole subjective conscious experience deal and we know what it "feels like" to know a language, and the Chinese Room doesn't "feel like" it knows Chinese (I'm using quotes here to try to convey a difficult concept, not in a sarcastic/mocking sense).

That was a useful summary. And I agree with your earlier point that "subjective conscious experience is fucking weird... we're not entirely certain where it stems from."

QuotePersonally I am of the opinion that that feeling is a cognitive bias, and that there are a number of holes with the theory: specifically, I don't give a shit if Plato him-fucking-self showed up and claimed the systems argument is wrong, I'm still going to take that stance, because I don't think the Chinese Room in itself is a sufficient representation of the system as a whole of what a sapient free-willed thinking being is.

Since you seem to know your philosophy in depth, I am curious what philosophy of mind you subscribe to personally?

I personally have found the various strains of physicalism/materialism to range from absurd to unpersuasive. I have sympathies for Nagel's panpsychic musings in Mind and Cosmos, Ed Feser's neo-Aristotelian hylomorphism, Sir Roger Penrose's theory of mind, and Henry Stapp's dualism in Quantum Theory and Free Will. Stapp, in particular, I thought made a persuasive case that quantum physics offers an answer to the interaction dilemma that caused dualism to be discarded in the 19th century.

(Not trying to pick a pointless forum fight, genuinely curious.)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123052Instead, I suspect that a "self-aware AI" will be quite alien in its awareness.

Which is why we'll have to kill it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1123065Which is why we'll have to kill it.

I was a big fan of Magnus: Robot Fighter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzYRdJnTuws) as a kid. Magnus fought robots with karate! Yes, he whacked metal with his meat hands. I imagine Magnus would do as well in real life as we will do against an aware AI.

Never create an AI without being able to pull the plug out of the wall.

Quote from: jeff37923;1123022To do so causes it to stop being a game and start being a mental disorder. Wasn't Rona Jaffe's Mazes and Monsters based on that premise?

Proto-Larping gone wrong. Or in the books case a mentally unstable player who was actually trying to stay away from RPGs gets drawn back into playing and then one of the other players "takes it to the next level" which is more or less a LARP and the unstable player cracks. He is nearly the opposite of the types that want "immersion!" or to blur the lines between character and player.

For obvious reasons its complex. Ive never seen it at the table but have talked to people and looked at accounts and studies where they were. LARPs draw this out alot more.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123052I'm increasingly skeptical of the "true AI" ever becoming a reality as envisioned. AKA, a computerized human.

Instead, I suspect that a "self-aware AI" will be quite alien in its awareness. It may communicate effectively with us meatbags, but how it reaches A to Z will not be based our understanding of memory and thinking skills.

Oh, AI is convincing people to see invisible aliens.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a30705013/ai-extraterrestrials/

"True AI" being a computerized human? The funny thing is - how would we even know? The more I work with this stuff, and the more obvious it is to me that humans, generally are not very intelligent, the more I realize that that we wouldn't know "True AI" was even a thing until it was *far far far* too late. It's happening right now... people believe that their devices are only listening to them and feeding them marketing. They're completely *blind/deaf/dumb* to the sophisticated predictive realities modern AI's are operating from *RIGHT NOW*. It's not that you mentioned whiskey in front of Siri, that you're now getting whiskey adverts all over the place. It's that Siri already figured out based on *millions* of datapoints it's collected about you, people like you, people that resemble you, with similar datapoints, within a certain reliable probability that *right now* would be a good time for you to be talking about whiskey and might be interested in these whiskey-choices for purchase.

It is real. "True AI" won't be recognized by humans "as human" (because it's not), but it will convince you otherwise once you do recognize it... because it wants you to think that. And there is no chance you'll be able to tell the difference short of someone telling you otherwise.*

*This assumes that AI reaches true levels of "sentient cognition". I'm of the opinion that *humans* will not measure up that "standard" once its established (whatever that will be).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1123075Never create an AI without being able to pull the plug out of the wall.

Too late.

Quote from: tenbones;1123086"True AI" being a computerized human? The funny thing is - how would we even know? The more I work with this stuff, and the more obvious it is to me that humans, generally are not very intelligent, the more I realize that that we wouldn't know "True AI" was even a thing until it was *far far far* too late...

Heh.  I've been saying for years that there is no way to create "AI" without also creating "AS" (artificial stupidity).  The ability to make decisions is the ability to screw them up.  Think of the average AI that you know.  50% of all AI's are dumber than that.  (With apologies to G. Carlin.)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123089Heh.  I've been saying for years that there is no way to create "AI" without also creating "AS" (artificial stupidity).  The ability to make decisions is the ability to screw them up.  Think of the average AI that you know.  50% of all AI's are dumber than that.  (With apologies to G. Carlin.)

Yep it will cut both ways. I think humans will suffer far worse for it. Since we're the only ones capable of "suffering"...

Quote from: VisionStorm;1123004I have had issues with players who like to play "evil" characters, though. I don't think that these people are necessarily "evil" or criminal "deep down", however. I just think that different people look for different things in RPGs and some people take it more seriously than others or have a better grasp of RP and world immersion. And players who play "stupid evil" characters tend to come from the perspective of "this isn't real/I can get away with anything!", so they end up making stupid decisions and derailing the game with random killing and stealing cuz they're "evil", but the player doesn't know how to think things through or care enough about disrupting other's play.

I tend to think that players who have their characters act disruptively are doing it because they're bored.

Quote from: amacris;1123064I personally have found the various strains of physicalism/materialism to range from absurd to unpersuasive.

I'm a physicalist. There is one substance, and arguments for anything more complicated than that require - in my mind - significantly stronger arguments to justify the more complex ontology (yes, I'm effectively invoking Ockham). Nor will I allow for property dualism. Ironically, I find Searle's "biological naturalism" convincing.

The fact that brain function influences and controls mental states is a strong enough justification, in my mind, to say that materialism is sensible.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1123114I'm a physicalist. There is one substance, and arguments for anything more complicated than that require - in my mind - significantly stronger arguments to justify the more complex ontology (yes, I'm effectively invoking Ockham). Nor will I allow for property dualism. Ironically, I find Searle's "biological naturalism" convincing.

The fact that brain function influences and controls mental states is a strong enough justification, in my mind, to say that materialism is sensible.

Thanks for answering. I was a materialist for many years. It sounds like you've read the same writers I have and had the opposite outcome as to what you concluded was persuasive. Cheers.

Quote from: tenbones;1123086The more I work with this stuff, and the more obvious it is to me that humans, generally are not very intelligent, the more I realize that that we wouldn't know "True AI" was even a thing until it was *far far far* too late.

My concern is whether we will notice the AI developing cunning. I believe cunning will signal the AI has some limited self-awareness that it will want to protect and enough awareness to be concerned about us. Apparently, there have been tests where the AI will lie, but we're still far from any form of sentience.

Quote from: tenbones;1123086.*This assumes that AI reaches true levels of "sentient cognition". I'm of the opinion that *humans* will not measure up that "standard" once its established (whatever that will be).

Please explain this more.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123122My concern is whether we will notice the AI developing cunning.

Shades of a remark I read just the other day:  "Don't fear the AI smart enough to pass the Turing test. Fear the AI smart enough to pretend to fail it."

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123122My concern is whether we will notice the AI developing cunning. I believe cunning will signal the AI has some limited self-awareness that it will want to protect and enough awareness to be concerned about us. Apparently, there have been tests where the AI will lie, but we're still far from any form of sentience.

The University of Alberta has an AI that has beaten everyone it has played in headsup limit holdem (poker) matches. It doesn't win every match, I am 3W - 15L against it, but I don't think anyone has a winning  record. Heads up, you can't rely on the strength of your hand. You have to win some pots with deception and have to avoid being deceived. I think it's  pretty damn cunning.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123122My concern is whether we will notice the AI developing cunning. I believe cunning will signal the AI has some limited self-awareness that it will want to protect and enough awareness to be concerned about us. Apparently, there have been tests where the AI will lie, but we're still far from any form of sentience.

This approaches the AI "conundrum" in a classically human way. Understand that as you believe *we* as humans believe we are "monitoring" AI's progress, unless you're working in AI development (and even then this is rampant) we forget that the algorithms that alongside the hardware advances we're making - what we call AI is learning about us. The very things we're willfully blind to in ourselves - which is a lot, merely look at how we conduct the processes of our politics as the most obvious example, AI will see right through. More importantly emergent AI is tabulating each and every interaction and corresponding reaction and measuring those datapoints on *scales* our human minds cannot comprehend. This is occurring *moment by moment*.

The short answer is this: what we think of as "cunning" is merely a shadow of what we're really going to be up against. By the time we conceive of the notion that any shred of duplicity is in play in an actual general AI, it will likely be by intent, or happy accident that it will have already calculated not only our reaction by intent, but most permutations of our reactions to the point where it will not matter.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123122Please explain this more.

"Sentience" is relative to the cognitive capacity of the individual. If the stipulation is AI has achieved "General Intelligence" then it will be free of many of the constituent flaws that, "humans" we pretend to be intelligent (generally), are plagued with. Biases, emotions, irrational beliefs, flat out incorrect understandings, elements we consider quintessentially as part of our identities that make us "humans".  

There is no reason to believe that while we pretend we can let an AI "learn" these things that an AI wouldn't develop those assumptions into something far different in expression as an extrapolation of "Highest Good". And this is merely the tip of the iceberg. The extreme hubris of humans pretending we are the alpha-omega of reasoning when it comes to morality and ethics is grotesquely arrogant. General Intelligence AI's will not have those things as *we* understand them. They might fully well have a whole disparate set of issues of course.

Because we maintain those concepts relative only to ourselves... and MAYBE in principle to others as an abstraction. General AI would have no such limits in either conception, *or* execution of such principles (if indeed it has any we can "control"). By the time a human has figured out what IS Sentient Cognition which approximates what we euphemistically call "General Intelligence" the point at which a fleshbag human declares "This AI is Generally Intelligent" - it will be the equivalent of a Fly declaring a Human "the Biggest Fly at the Garbage Can". Not only will it be wrong. But whatever definition that human is using, they would either be inadequate to measure up to that standard - OR the standard itself will be so inconsequential to the capacity of an AI, it will be rendered moot on arrival. Or maybe about 5-minutes after the human realizes it then proclaims it.

Quote from: amacris;1123121Thanks for answering. I was a materialist for many years. It sounds like you've read the same writers I have and had the opposite outcome as to what you concluded was persuasive. Cheers.

If you don't mind my asking, what changed your mind?

I was a hardcore materialist (Only atoms and the void) for many years, but lately I've considered seriously the argument that assuming materialism means locking yourself into materialism. IE if you're a materialist, you have to exclude other isms, like Idealism even if they may be true.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123133Shades of a remark I read just the other day:  "Don't fear the AI smart enough to pass the Turing test. Fear the AI smart enough to pretend to fail it."

Exactly. If you think it's cunning - its because it *wants* you to think that. And by the time you've convinced yourself that it is being duplicitous - it's TOO late. Because it's already 5000 moves ahead of you with sub-processes checking for variations and modeling possible outcomes based on choices you make that don't fit the first 5000.

Because it *can*, and do so in the relative blink of an eye.

To give you an idea... (I think I mentioned this before)...

If I asked you "How many people do you think have an over-night stay at a hospital in an average day?" Then think of *all* the ramifications of that question? Time of day/night? Weather? Month? Traffic patterns? Holiday? Male/Female? Age? The permutations of EACH individual that could walk into a metropolitan city hospital, the assumptions of the types of injury or illness that within a host of parameters could emerge? Outlier issues? Etc. etc. etc.

Your best guess would be nothing more than that. A guess. AT BEST. We have four Nobel prize winners at my facility that couldn't begin to fathom such a question.

After taking a 3-year slice of patient data. We fed 2-years worth into the AI (mind you this is nothing *close* to General AI) - and it made a day-by-day, minute-by-minute prediction of people who would end up staying over-night for the *NEXT* year. Race, Age, Sex, condition, etc. etc. all the way down the line... and it was accurate to the ACTUAL data we had on hand with a deviation of **3%**.

Consider that for a moment. That is predicting the behaviors of PEOPLE living their lives, doing whatever it is they do, and the AI predicting on a given day how many White Males will come in after 1pm on a Saturday with a fractured orbital ridge, because he was drunk and got hit with a softball. Or a black woman will have a coronary, or a kid falls down the stairs on a Sunday because he's racing down to his paused X-box game after cleaning up his room...

And it was accurate within 3% over the span of an *entire year* - without knowing anything other than what it extrapolated from established patterns. Yeah - you don't have to worry about your devices "listening" - everything is watching and measuring you, it's already largely done.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123142If you don't mind my asking, what changed your mind?

I was a hardcore materialist (Only atoms and the void) for many years, but lately I've considered seriously the argument that assuming materialism means locking yourself into materialism. IE if you're a materialist, you have to exclude other isms, like Idealism even if they may be true.

Yes, exactly. Richard Lewontin, the famous geneticist, once wrote: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

And I realized that I fundamentally disagree with that attitude. I have an a priori commitment to the intelligibility of the world to reason, but I have no a priori commitment to materialism. If reason leads me to conclude that dualism or idealism is correct, I will follow where reason leads. If reason leads me to conclude that God exists, I will believe in God. The proper goal of science is not to keep the supernatural out; it is to let the truth in.

There is an old trope that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards for an infinite time would eventually produce a copy of Hamlet. And that's true. But an a priori commitment to materialism leads to a twisted sort of reasoning, where one discovers a copy of Hamlet and therefore concludes there must be an infinite group of monkeys, because Shakespeare can't be real.

Once I rejected a priori materialism I followed where that lead me, and found the answers far more satisfying. In particular I recommend Henry Stapp's work on quantum physics and philosophy, which are powerful rebukes to the assumptions of physicalism and determinism. Stapp shows, to my satisifaction, that it is entirely scientific to conclude that we live in a dualist universe, that the mind interacts with the brain through quantum physics, and that free will is real.

Quote from: amacris;1123145I have an a priori commitment to the intelligibility of the world to reason, but I have no a priori commitment to materialism.

Excellent way to put it. Thank you.

QuoteOnce I rejected a priori materialism I followed where that lead me, and found the answers far more satisfying. In particular I recommend Henry Stapp's work on quantum physics and philosophy, which are powerful rebukes to the assumptions of physicalism and determinism. Stapp shows, to my satisifaction, that it is entirely scientific to conclude that we live in a dualist universe, that the mind interacts with the brain through quantum physics, and that free will is real.

Thanks for the reccomendation. I'll put it on the list.

At minimum it is an emergent quality of that quantum interaction. I'm with you on that. I've been following Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory now for decades... which is directly pointing at this very thing.

Quote from: tenbones;1123148At minimum it is an emergent quality of that quantum interaction. I'm with you on that. I've been following Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory now for decades... which is directly pointing at this very thing.

Right, right. I think it's going to turn out that either Penrose/Hameroff or Stapp/Neumann are on the mark (or close to it). Hopefully we'll find out in my lifetime so I don't die agnostic, hah.

Quote from: amacris;1123152Right, right. I think it's going to turn out that either Penrose/Hameroff or Stapp/Neumann are on the mark (or close to it). Hopefully we'll find out in my lifetime so I don't die agnostic, hah.

heh interesting times either way! And if either of them ARE right - "dying" will be irrelevant, because theoretically quantum computing could "recreate" you...

Quote from: tenbones;1123153heh interesting times either way! And if either of them ARE right - "dying" will be irrelevant, because theoretically quantum computing could "recreate"...

Hey, that's a good point! I can chill now. :D

Screw all this! I am going to pretend I am an AI to fool the AIs pretending to not be AIs. (And any AIs pretending to be AIs. You know its going to happen. :eek:)

Quote from: amacris;1123145And I realized that I fundamentally disagree with that attitude. I have an a priori commitment to the intelligibility of the world to reason, but I have no a priori commitment to materialism. If reason leads me to conclude that dualism or idealism is correct, I will follow where reason leads. If reason leads me to conclude that God exists, I will believe in God. The proper goal of science is not to keep the supernatural out; it is to let the truth in.

For the record, I have no issue with any of this. If there is a reasonable argument for the existence of noumenal entities, then I will readily accept their existence.

QuoteOnce I rejected a priori materialism I followed where that lead me, and found the answers far more satisfying. In particular I recommend Henry Stapp's work on quantum physics and philosophy, which are powerful rebukes to the assumptions of physicalism and determinism. Stapp shows, to my satisifaction, that it is entirely scientific to conclude that we live in a dualist universe, that the mind interacts with the brain through quantum physics, and that free will is real.

And for further clarification, while I am a physicalist, I am very much against determinism. While quantum phenomena are certainly a possible resolution to the determinism problem, personally I am of the opinion that the means by which consciousness operates is a recursive loop onto itself that doesn't "resolve," and so is unbound from the normal determinism of the rest of the universe. I'm not sure if that's where he goes with it, but I took the seed of that notion from Hofstadter.

I'm also not convinced that quantum physics suggests a new/different substance, but that's just a knee-jerk reaction, I haven't heard any arguments for or against. "Weird" doesn't necessarily imply a fundamentally separate mode of existence.

I know you guys want this to be "deep and philosophical", but --- elf games with magic and dragons.

Stop it. Not because I say so, but because going down this road is exactly what the SJWs want.

Quote from: tenbones;1123143We have four Nobel prize winners at my facility that couldn't begin to fathom such a question.

You better be sneaking into their offices and taking selfies with their Nobels!

Quote from: tenbones;1123143After taking a 3-year slice of patient data. We fed 2-years worth into the AI (mind you this is nothing *close* to General AI) - and it made a day-by-day, minute-by-minute prediction of people who would end up staying over-night for the *NEXT* year. Race, Age, Sex, condition, etc. etc. all the way down the line... and it was accurate to the ACTUAL data we had on hand with a deviation of **3%**.

How did the model deal with weather fluctuation? I understand hospitalizations and bad weather have a major correlation and thus you'd have a rise during years with heavy winters and/or extra hot summers vs. "normal years" vs. years with mild winters and/or summers.

3% deviation! Scary. Did you allow the AI to weight the various data points or was that done by humans? I find the data weighting choices to be fascinating and great for finding weird anomalies.

DMs play all the roles both good and bad but does not have anything close to the immersion that a player has with a character they are playing. IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1123158I know you guys want this to be "deep and philosophical", but --- elf games with magic and dragons.

Stop it. Not because I say so, but because going down this road is exactly what the SJWs want.

I disagree.

Yes, I think the conversation is getting pretty deep in the weeds and I cannot see a practical gaming application for what they're talking about, but it is something not seen here often enough. Maybe something can be gleaned from this that I can find useful. They should continue.

I have to say though, that 35 years after the Satanic Panic when people thought that playing elfgames would lead to devil worshipping and human sacrifice, here we are entertaining the idea that game styles can demonstrate the True Self of a person.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

Well, that depends on why they're doing it.

Even stipulating for argument's sake to the thesis "what someone enjoys imagining his PC doing is what he wants, in some part at least deep down, to do himself in reality" -- which is very, very far from a given, as others have pointed out previously in the thread -- there are still two perspectives on the choice to indulge that fantasy. You can indulge in a damaging fantasy by saying, "At least this way there are no consequences to any other real people," or you can say, "This way there are no consequences to me."

Or, indeed, both, but it does make a difference which is the priority, I think.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1123158I know you guys want this to be "deep and philosophical", but --- elf games with magic and dragons.

Stop it. Not because I say so, but because going down this road is exactly what the SJWs want.

And anyone else who doesnt like RPGs. So it can be touted as example of why RPGs are bad and need to be stopped. Nothing new there sadly.

As noted before. Its when we get a full dive VR that we will see people go full tilt off the deep end. Though Im surprised we havent seen more trouble from the more "realistic" week long LARPs yet. Either that or they are good at covering up so far. But from talking to others more into active in LARP than I. Its getting slowly worse. Especially in Europe where they can host huge and elaborate LARPs. And push heavily for using real weapons. But has crept into US LARPing as well.

Regular RPGing so far hasnt had as much trouble. But the increasing push for "immersion!" is starting to show the nuts a little more.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166DMs play all the roles both good and bad but does not have anything close to the immersion that a player has with a character they are playing. IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

Oh this whole "You are what you RP!" has been directed at DMs for a good while now. Sporatic usually. But I've seen nuts declare that a DM who is running villains is an evil person for real. These are the people who seem to have little grasp on reality and are just as bad as the immersion fanatics. Two far sides of one bad coin.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166DMs play all the roles both good and bad but does not have anything close to the immersion that a player has with a character they are playing.

El Borak, please start a thread about "DM immersion." That would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

I want to disagree with you, but I've had a few of those players over the years. It's not the "I wanna play ebil!!" guys who just want to be cartoon villains or edgy dorks that ever concerned me, but I've "taken the warning" from the ones who want to get immersive about vile shit and I took action to keep them from my table.

The game table isn't the place to work out psychological problems or fetishes, whatever they might be.

Quote from: Omega;1123182Its when we get a full dive VR that we will see people go full tilt off the deep end. Though Im surprised we havent seen more trouble from the more "realistic" week long LARPs yet.

Full VR is gonna be interesting. I suspect we'll see headcase nonsense, but not mass hysteria because VR hardware is actually anti-immersive. AKA, you wear a helmet that gets increasingly uncomfortable and heavy as hours pass, and if you have gloves or a bodysuit, that's also getting uncomfortable over time. Also, VR lacks olfactory and tactile input and those "missing senses" will actually help keep people grounded, even with their suspension of disbelief.

"Deep LARPs" can get very intense because you can have 5 sense immersion. I suspect we haven't "seen more trouble" from them is because they are long. AKA, you need breaks to piss, shit, eat and sleep which all somewhat "reset" you back in the real world.

Quote from: Omega;1123182And push heavily for using real weapons. But has crept into US LARPing as well.

I fought "live steel" 30 years ago in California with an "unsanctioned" offshoot of the SCA (society for creative anachronism). There's always the nutters who want to try out real (but blunted) weaponry. As one of those nutters, I can tell you its GREAT fun, a tremendous rush of idiot machismo and it hurts like hell. Oh, I freaking loved it. So glad I stopped before I got really hurt.

Boffer wars can get pretty hurty over a long weekend of smackage, but real weapons are so much heavier and the kinetic energy pours into your body, regardless of your armor. In fact, I'd rather wear heavy leather than chain or plate when fighting live steel because you're not trying to stop a blade, but absorb and spread the force of the blow. And "live steel" will teach you that a shield does WAY more than +5% defense!!! FYI, claymores suck, flails are super scary and maces are your friend.

But chicks thought it was super hot in college. Thus, the broken ribs were worth it!

Quote from: Omega;1123183Oh this whole "You are what you RP!" has been directed at DMs for a good while now. Sporatic usually. But I've seen nuts declare that a DM who is running villains is an evil person for real. These are the people who seem to have little grasp on reality and are just as bad as the immersion fanatics. Two far sides of one bad coin.

Actors would have the same problem as roleplayers, and one need only look at the track record of the actors of famous villains to see that it is a real danger that people can't separate fantasy from reality. Gary Oldman in particular is especially evil. Alan Rickman was a serial murderer of obnoxious coke-snorting salesmen in LA. Peter Cushing was a sociopathic, power-hungry, planet-destroying maniac without kindness or remorse. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve7KEwq8isU) And Sean Bean has been dead for years.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123206Full VR is gonna be interesting. I suspect we'll see headcase nonsense, but not mass hysteria because VR hardware is actually anti-immersive. AKA, you wear a helmet that gets increasingly uncomfortable and heavy as hours pass, and if you have gloves or a bodysuit, that's also getting uncomfortable over time. Also, VR lacks olfactory and tactile input and those "missing senses" will actually help keep people grounded, even with their suspension of disbelief.

Note I said full dive VR. Not current off the shelf VR or Current off the shelf with a little instrumentality. I mean full dive as in full sensory input. But that level of tech may yet be a long ways off without invasive surgery for some sort of sensory jack. And with tech advancing most are going to wait for something stable before taking that leap.

Though there have been some advances in sensory suits. Still fairly pimitive yet by Sci-Fi VR standards. But slowly edging there.

And allready we are seeing a few lighter, though cheaper, VR headsets. But the ones with good resolution tend to be fairly large.

But the potential for playing RPGs would be big depending on the tools on hand. Assuming anyone ever made a toolkit akin to Neverwinters.

Till then I have used in the past my now lost Keep in the Borderland build in Minecraft to give players a better idea of scale and how the caves look from a characters perspective.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166DMs play all the roles both good and bad but does not have anything close to the immersion that a player has with a character they are playing. IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

If a player is setting off the "ick detector" in the rest of the group, I guarantee it is something they brought with them to the game, not something the game produced in them.   In that case, the game is the canary in the coal mine. I still don't want to breathe the same air, no matter what the activity.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166DMs play all the roles both good and bad but does not have anything close to the immersion that a player has with a character they are playing. IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

It does happen with DMs too though. I joined one campaign -- for a single game -- where the DM got really high (I daresay emotionally "aroused") gushing about how great it was to "punch a girl right in the face" (one of the PCs was female). It was rather uncomfortable.

Quote from: ElBorak;1123166DMs play all the roles both good and bad but does not have anything close to the immersion that a player has with a character they are playing. IMO people who want to play only evil characters and do vile stuff are truly evil and are warning everyone around them and it would be wise to take the warning.

Meh. I'm not a fan of people who like to play "evil" characters too much, cuz in my experience they tend to be disruptive and play "stupid evil" characters who do moronic stuff, then whine when the town guards are forced to run their characters down (in freaking self-defense!), but I wouldn't go as far as to call such players "evil". They're just disruptive players who don't know how to play their characters properly and think that playing "evil" alignment or whatever is a free-pass to do 100% whatever they want in-game. I've rarely seen players like that pull truly despicable stunts in real life, though.

Play whatever rocks your boat and makes your day a bit brighter. I don't know how many movies I have seen which turned into some sort of revenge porn, for instance. I have also gone berserk while playing video games, once nuking everything in sight when I realized that I was losing in Civilization. And that's all fine. The whole point is that it isn't reality. Doesn't mean that everyone wants to be in your group when you go all serial-killer-y, so I guess that's the only caveat with roleplaying games; everyone has to be in on the feel of the game.

I sometimes do play someone pretty close to myself though, and I'm a pretty mellow guy. I don't have any issues with that either.

Quote from: Trond;1123270Play whatever rocks your boat and makes your day a bit brighter. I don't know how many movies I have seen which turned into some sort of revenge porn, for instance. I have also gone berserk while playing video games, once nuking everything in sight when I realized that I was losing in Civilization. And that's all fine. The whole point is that it isn't reality. Doesn't mean that everyone wants to be in your group when you go all serial-killer-y, so I guess that's the only caveat with roleplaying games; everyone has to be in on the feel of the game.

I sometimes do play someone pretty close to myself though, and I'm a pretty mellow guy. I don't have any issues with that either.

Test

The trick with evil characters is to not make them complete assholes. As VisionStorm notes above, some people take that 'evil' tag as an excuse to act like a murderous buffoon.

Lawful evil is generally my 'go to' for 'bad to the bone' PCs. Even then those should have traits which trade off their sins and make them attractive from a party-cohesion standpoint. Obviously, if you have a paladin in the party it's going to get tricky. But! Getting things done should allow you to put off a day of reckoning with Sir Loin of Beef.

Neutral evil and chaotic evil tend to be too self-absorbed or selfish to make good party teammates. A lawful evil PC can be convinced to put off gratification to sustain a party goal, but it's a lot harder with NE/CE.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123164You better be sneaking into their offices and taking selfies with their Nobels!

Eh. I'll be honest... while they're super-geniuses in their respective fields, I'm not star-struck by them as "people" (you can infer from that what you will, heh). Plus they're like Antediluvians... they show up only rarely, to throw their weight around on the serfs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123164How did the model deal with weather fluctuation? I understand hospitalizations and bad weather have a major correlation and thus you'd have a rise during years with heavy winters and/or extra hot summers vs. "normal years" vs. years with mild winters and/or summers.

The answer: I have no idea. Now the extrapolation is clearly using some kind of metalogic based on the two-years worth of data where the correlation between the frequency and types injuries/ailments occurred it created some probable figure... But *consider* the deterministic implications of this.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11231643% deviation! Scary. Did you allow the AI to weight the various data points or was that done by humans? I find the data weighting choices to be fascinating and great for finding weird anomalies.

Standard Electronic Medical Records have a *whole lot* of datapoints to feed on. The AI did all the weighting itself. The fact is *none* of us could have done it - that was the whole point. There are too many variables for any of us to even try to make such a projection with wide open parameters. I mean we could do it on obvious stuff - flu-cases during "flu-season", and within a given age-range. But 3% deviation? *no way in hell* could we dream of that level of accuracy. So yeah... "General AI"? When that lands, it won't matter to most people. They can't fathom, and will never fathom the reality of "what is true" about "it" unless that AI decides to let them know. And even then, there is no reason to believe it since any specific reaction you have, it will likely have determined before you do it.

But they'll make a helluva a GM.

Quote from: tenbones;1123291Eh. I'll be honest... while they're super-geniuses in their respective fields, I'm not star-struck by them as "people" (you can infer from that what you will, heh).

I infer they're total douche nozzles of uber-schlong-dorkness! Even more reasons for super secret selfies with their preciouses!

Quote from: tenbones;1123291But *consider* the deterministic implications of this.

I am properly terrified.

Makes me wonder what else your model could predict if queried. I wonder how much non-medical decision making could be foretold based on their medical data. I wonder what oddball questions would get a 80% correct answer based on just understanding patient health.

Quote from: tenbones;1123291The AI did all the weighting itself.

That is very interesting...and scary. That's the difference between the small fry garage band stuff I do and the true main stage AI work. We might have a couple dozen variables, but nothing of the scope your project had.

Quote from: tenbones;1123291But they'll make a helluva a GM.

What if it wants to LARP....

I do quite a bit of post-apocalyptic gaming, and not once in my life have I put an arrow in someone's chest over a crate of 40 year old cans of soup. If we are what we pretend to be, I'm pretty bad at what I do.

Quote from: asron819;1123337I do quite a bit of post-apocalyptic gaming, and not once in my life have I put an arrow in someone's chest over a crate of 40 year old cans of soup.

Yet. (Dun dun dunnnnnn!!!!) :eek: ;)

Quote from: asron819;1123337I do quite a bit of post-apocalyptic gaming, and not once in my life have I put an arrow in someone's chest over a crate of 40 year old cans of soup. If we are what we pretend to be, I'm pretty bad at what I do.

If you want to know what 40 year old canned goods can turn into, go check out a 'vintage' MRE channel on Youtube. Egads. :eek:

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1123341If you want to know what 40 year old canned goods can turn into, go check out a 'vintage' MRE channel on Youtube. Egads. :eek:

Steve1989MREInfo (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2I6Et1JkidnnbWgJFiMeHA) is my favorite.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123344Steve1989MREInfo (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2I6Et1JkidnnbWgJFiMeHA) is my favorite.

Mine too, but we're getting off track here :)

In any case, isn't the whole POINT of roleplaying games to pretend to be something you're not?

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1123459Mine too, but we're getting off track here :)

In any case, isn't the whole POINT of roleplaying games to pretend to be something you're not?

It's a big part of it, but not the whole. You could play yourself (or someone similar) in very outlandish and weird situations. So I guess the point is to experience things that you don't in normal life (in addition to socializing etc.)

Quote from: Trond;1123463It's a big part of it, but not the whole. You could play yourself (or someone similar) in very outlandish and weird situations. So I guess the point is to experience things that you don't in normal life (in addition to socializing etc.)

Maybe I do it differently. I always figure everyone's character has a little bit of themselves anyways (to make them relatable). Like, one PC of mine might have my bad temper, another might have my fascination with chemistry, a third my idealism, etc.

So it's me, and not me, at the same time. Does that make any sense? I think I'm rambling here.

Quote from: tenbones;1123143And it was accurate within 3% over the span of an *entire year* - without knowing anything other than what it extrapolated from established patterns.

The longer the time span the higher the accuracy. I'd be more impressed if the daily accuracy was within 3%.

Quote from: Bren;1123492The longer the time span the higher the accuracy. I'd be more impressed if the daily accuracy was within 3%.

Sure. But we're really in the infancy of all this. We're pulling some 4-billion rows of EMR data sliced in thousands of different ways *everyday*. So this was just a test run. When this sucker goes live, it will probably consume the last decade of data we currently keep archived, in a week, and I'm willing to put my hesitant chip down that we'll have this level of accuracy. And if not - give it a year, two tops.

And at that point... a lot of my co-workers will find themselves shifting to other responsibilities if not other jobs... or be let go entirely. Galactus help them.

Me? I'll likely be the Meatbag Assistant to the AI God of Healing.

Quote from: tenbones;1123581Sure. But we're really in the infancy of all this. We're pulling some 4-billion rows of EMR data sliced in thousands of different ways *everyday*. So this was just a test run. When this sucker goes live, it will probably consume the last decade of data we currently keep archived, in a week, and I'm willing to put my hesitant chip down that we'll have this level of accuracy. And if not - give it a year, two tops.

I don't believe that level of accuracy is possible with the information available from EMR data. One mass shooting, multiple car accident, or epidemic is going to toss the expected value out the window for that day and those events are not predictable on a daily basis.

Quote from: Bren;1123592I don't believe that level of accuracy is possible with the information available from EMR data. One mass shooting, multiple car accident, or epidemic is going to toss the expected value out the window for that day and those events are not predictable on a daily basis.

Well consider the multitude of extra datapoints when those records get cross referenced with police data and all the other forms of data-collection going on. While right now - I'm in total agreement with you, I can also see this push once more sophisticated AI (and it is coming) until such things as outlier events like multi-car pileups, and epidemics are caught *before* they happen, or are mitigated by preventative practices - like "traffic control" regulation, talking to "smart cars" on a moment by moment basis.

There will always be outliers, lets stipulate. But the reality is these predictive events will become less common and *we* won't even notice it until those outliers emerge. That really the "scary place" I'm talking about. We're not there yet. But it's coming.

Because when General AI lands... which will be after all of those things above, we will already be outclassed, outmatched, out-thought before we've even realized it. WE are the ones willfully blind to our own patterned behaviors, that General AI will detect and manipulate with terrifying ease - and we'll pretend otherwise. Just like it would ideally want.

The gaming implications are insane to consider! We could be happily sitting in our pods playing the best RPG ever with the best GM ever... simultaneously. Sure we'll be living in capsule apartments stacked like Lincoln Logs in relative dystopian hell! But we'll have our circuses to go with our bread-flavored nutrient pellets.

Quote from: tenbones;1123628Well consider the multitude of extra datapoints when those records get cross referenced with police data and all the other forms of data-collection going on. While right now - I'm in total agreement with you, I can also see this push once more sophisticated AI (and it is coming) until such things as outlier events like multi-car pileups, and epidemics are caught *before* they happen, or are mitigated by preventative practices - like "traffic control" regulation, talking to "smart cars" on a moment by moment basis.

Because when General AI lands... which will be after all of those things above, we will already be outclassed, outmatched, out-thought before we've even realized it. WE are the ones willfully blind to our own patterned behaviors, that General AI will detect and manipulate with terrifying ease - and we'll pretend otherwise. Just like it would ideally want.

I think you've hit on an interesting problem that I hadn't considered before.

When I ponder AI, I am generally thinking of what is now known as "general AI," and more specifically, a free-willed sapient thinking machine. I don't think such a thing is a danger to humanity, in the classic ways in which AI is a danger (including the sort you've hit on).

However... we're not there yet, and we're going to have the kind of thing you're talking about before then. This shit actually is dangerous, because it has no will, no thoughts, no telos: someone somewhere tells it what to do, and then it goes and does it. With no sense of causation, only correlation, it will do extreme things. With improperly-worded directives, it will do extreme things. All because it is incapable of thinking about it, or rejecting an order, or modifying its own code. It's just... blindly going through the motions, and - worse - I think we've blinded ourselves to these issues because we keep talking about it like it's intelligent, like us, but it isn't. It's just doing complex pattern-matching.

It's not the machine that wants you dead that's a problem. It's the machine that's just "intelligently" doing things and following its code, with no awareness and no thought.

Quote from: tenbones;1123628WE are the ones willfully blind to our own patterned behaviors, that General AI will detect and manipulate with terrifying ease - and we'll pretend otherwise.

Excellent points. We're blind to our patterns and our egos will blind us to the manipulation.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1123637This shit actually is dangerous, because it has no will, no thoughts, no telos: someone somewhere tells it what to do, and then it goes and does it.

Agreed. The "Dumb AI" would be at the mercy of its creators' programming, aka HAL from 2001.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123658Agreed. The "Dumb AI" would be at the mercy of its creators' programming, aka HAL from 2001.

No. No, you're still thinking about it wrong.

HAL took action, had motive and goals. An AI that can build goals for itself is no more a slave to its code than we are to our neurotransmitters.

A self-driving car has no goals. It is a sophisticated piece of software that uses statistics to perform operations. More importantly, it not only has no choice in the matter, it is not a thing that has awareness of the fact that it has no choice.

You can use adversarial techniques to freak out the code running a self-driving car to make it do "stupid" things, because there's no mind. The operations it's performing are neither "smart" nor "stupid:" they're just what it's doing. It might look like it's making intelligent decisions, and we foolishly call it "intelligent," but it is not only literally not so, it is literally incapable of being intelligent.

Meanwhile, HAL understood the concept of death, and feared it.

These things are... gulfs apart.

Hal though was still a slave to his coding and orders. And that was exactly why he flipped out as he was given orders that went against his baser code but he had to try and obey.

This is an inherint problem with AIs with any degree of both free will and coded responses. Something, or more likely someone, will sooner or later trigger a conflict that the AI cannot resolve.

Back on topic.

So at the end of the day we have what?

Crazy people who believe that playing something either makes you that thing or it means you want to, or are doing that thing for real.

Crazy people who want to blur the line between player and character. Or worse, want to totally subsume in the character.

And everyone else who is not a fruitcake.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1123660HAL took action, had motive and goals. An AI that can build goals for itself is no more a slave to its code than we are to our neurotransmitters.

I haven't read or seen 2001 for over two decades, but I don't remember HAL having motives and goals. HAL had his mission programming and then the conflict and his actions were based on the coded competition caused by the conflict.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1123660A self-driving car has no goals. It is a sophisticated piece of software that uses statistics to perform operations. More importantly, it not only has no choice in the matter, it is not a thing that has awareness of the fact that it has no choice.

This is true, but a self-driving car isn't an AI. It's an automated navigation system. Even the giant servers behind the navigation system aren't AIs. They are built with amazing machine learning tools, but no consciousness or intelligence is the focus or goal.  

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1123660Meanwhile, HAL understood the concept of death, and feared it.

I don't remember that. Was HAL's consciousness more discussed in the book?

Quote from: Omega;1123669Back on topic.

So at the end of the day we have what?

Crazy people who believe that playing something either makes you that thing or it means you want to, or are doing that thing for real.

Crazy people who want to blur the line between player and character. Or worse, want to totally subsume in the character.

And everyone else who is not a fruitcake.

Yes.

The group who believe RPGing makes you that thing or is somehow real are nutbags.

The group who want to subsume in character range from harmless wannabe thespians to nutbags.

Outside of the online freakshow, most of us will only encounter the harmless wannabe thespians.

I question how many of the online freakshow ever show up for actual play.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123696Yes.

The group who believe RPGing makes you that thing or is somehow real are nutbags.

The group who want to subsume in character range from harmless wannabe thespians to nutbags.

Outside of the online freakshow, most of us will only encounter the harmless wannabe thespians.

I question how many of the online freakshow ever show up for actual play.

I heard someone say that we like to think that we (humans) are 90% Rational and 10% Irrational but in reality it would be more like 10% Rational and 90% Irrational.

By that I mean it is entirely reasonable to believe that your imaginary Elf character is perfectly normal unlike those other Players with their freakish Elf characters.

I would say someone just wanting to get into their character is different from someone who wants to be their character.

One is just approaching it from a role playing perspective. Theater of the mind. Immersion of the normal sort.

The other has some mad desire to blur the line more and more. Immersion of the increasingly insane sort. Storygamers push "immersion" of this sort with depressing frequency. Golly Gee Ron. Seems its actually storygaming that causes brain damage. :rolleyes:

And I have no clue where youd place the IC fanatics but from experience they all too often push into the Nutcase side of the spectrum. Or at least the jackass end. Or its just a cover for gaining power over others because invariably their IC is ever so much more important than anyone elses.

Quote from: Omega;1123669Back on topic.

So at the end of the day we have what?

Crazy people who believe that playing something either makes you that thing or it means you want to, or are doing that thing for real.

Crazy people who want to blur the line between player and character. Or worse, want to totally subsume in the character.

And everyone else who is not a fruitcake.

You left out judgmental garbage who label what others enjoy as crazy.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1123721You left out judgmental garbage who label what others enjoy as crazy.

Yeah, but we all do that.

(Joking, but not really: I think just about everyone has an instinctive nah-can't-go-there-with-ya-brah line somewhere, however open-minded one tries to be.)

Being "judgmental" has a bad rap. Being "discerning" is something we all do, and should do. The problem is when people's sensitivities overrides their capacity to discern the difference. And it's more prevalent than ever.

I've had people try to play themselves in my campaigns, and very quickly found them doing such horrendous things that it weirded everyone out... really really horrendous acts by both omission and comission that made me realize for a lot of people, RPGs are not for everyone.

Stipulation: It could be just my games, as I like to get in-depth with things... but I defend my position by saying I don't condone cannibalism and human sacrifice as a normal mode of conduct, so I'm ruling this out.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1123721You left out judgmental garbage who label what others enjoy as crazy.

We aren't talking about normal folk who LARP or really get into their TTRPG character and the adventure. Theres a line past which doing something you enjoy crosses into loony land.

Quote from: tenbones;1123729I've had people try to play themselves in my campaigns, and very quickly found them doing such horrendous things that it weirded everyone out... really really horrendous acts by both omission and comission that made me realize for a lot of people, RPGs are not for everyone.

Stipulation: It could be just my games, as I like to get in-depth with things... but I defend my position by saying I don't condone cannibalism and human sacrifice as a normal mode of conduct, so I'm ruling this out.

Can you be more specific about this? Presumably you're talking about a player doing horrendous things in the game. i.e. Their character is an evil necromancer who engages in human sacrifice, and thus weirds out the other players.

I don't have your personal experience, but to my mind, it is a high bar to say that how someone plays their imaginary character is objectively wrong. I've seen and indeed played a lot of evil player characters in my campaigns, when the player was someone who was perfectly nice. I'm not sure of what line you're drawing that some role-playing crosses the line.

In my case, I've been concerned about how certain players engaged in the immersion. To be blunt, it gets creepy when its obvious the player is acting out something sexually fulfilling or something deeply wrong psychologically with themselves. Those aren't people anyone needs at their table...and the freaks need therapy, not dice.
 
In those VERY RARE cases, its not even about the PC actions as much as the player's performance. And when I say "very rare", I mean "less than a dozen" in 40 years of public gaming with a thousand plus strangers.

And I often play with nutballs who joke about dank shit, act out banging zombie strippers while we're eating and love to "take the piss" whenever possible, so my bar for "civilized behavior at the game table" isn't high.

Quote from: tenbones;1123729... but I defend my position by saying I don't condone cannibalism and human sacrifice as a normal mode of conduct, so I'm ruling this out.

No human sacrifice would really cut down on the fun of running a Pantangian or Melnibonean sorcerer when playing Stormbringer. :(

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123695I don't remember that. Was HAL's consciousness more discussed in the book?

Somewhat, though it's also seen in the movie as Bowman is systematically lobotomizing him, Hal is begging him to stop as he feels his mind shutting down. It's pretty disturbing, and more so when you realize Hal's psychosis wasn't integral, but imposed by some idiot bureaucrat sitting safely on Earth. There's a reason Dr. Chandra and Dr. Floyd are pissed off when they find out about it in the sequel (2010).

Quote from: Bren;1123789No human sacrifice would really cut down on the fun of running a Pantangian or Melnibonean sorcerer when playing Stormbringer. :(

Maybe you could sacrifice people from San Francisco, they don't count as human, right? :) Kidding, kidding...

Quote from: Omega;1123756We aren't talking about normal folk who LARP or really get into their TTRPG character and the adventure. Theres a line past which doing something you enjoy crosses into loony land.

I'll acknowledge that but I have met exactly one player who crossed that line, two if we count someone who was well over the line but only with one of her characters. She figured out after a few months that she shouldn't play that character any more.

I've seen a few too many who cross the line a little or alot in and out of gaming. And way too much in LARPing.

One example was a group pushing for enforcing staying in character even if someone was injured or required medical attention. Or the LARPers who want to use real weapons and are just short of trying to murder people. Or the simple fact that this push is making LARPing increasingly unsafe. Sooner or later theres going to be a fatality, if one hasnt happened allready. Some of the full armour battles are just insane the levels of violence they are inflicting on eachother. We are talking full force swings. Its a testament to just how well full plate armour with the propper under padding protects the wearer that anyone was still alive afterwards.

Mercifully you dont see that with TTRPGs. It tends to be more about becoming the character when things drift into wackyland.

Usually though what you see are mostly harmless excesses rather than anything detrimental. Though some might argue that cosmetic surgery to make yourself look like an elf or vampire is crossing the line. Id say it would be only if they start acting weird too. Otherwise its just body art. Though even that can get out of hand.

As noted before. Somehow, some way, someone will take something too far. Sooner or later there will be at least one in any given fandom, activity, whatever.

Quote from: jhkim;1123769Can you be more specific about this? Presumably you're talking about a player doing horrendous things in the game. i.e. Their character is an evil necromancer who engages in human sacrifice, and thus weirds out the other players.

World of Darkness. I have/had a player (he's literally stopped playing RPG's because he realized in this game that he had personal issues to address).

So basically, my WoD games do delve into personal horror in the sense that I want to challenge players assumptions about their characters based on their backgrounds. Well the player in question was developing a lot of anxiety playing in my WoD games, especially when the pressure was on... He'd shut down and do random shit in order to make it look like he was "doing something" that inevitably had disastrous consequences for himself and often for the group. So for a long time I thought it was an engagement issue. My games can get complex and I thought that the heavy politics was causing him to second-guess everything and it was paralyzing him personally, and he was not focusing on what his character would do. Essentially he was metagaming as himself and struggling against the conceits of his character vs. the "situation".

My other players noticed it too (he'd caused a LOT of problems for their characters because of his inability to commit and prosecute anything with confidence or competence). So I had the "bright" idea of suggesting - "Why don't you play yourself"? And I gave him my reasoning, and he seemed excited and agreed. (WORSE IDEA EVER)

So we started a new game - and shockingly, while we already identified this "habit" that he'd normally play in "siege mode" - like everyone is out to get him with his other characters, he'd do things in game to get "whatever" he deemed necessary to make himself feel "safe". Since he was playing himself literally in-game, it got *really* freaky. Because immediately this behavior emerged. He allowed his roomate (his former real-life roomate I made into an NPC - who was his childhood friend I wanted to use as a "stabilizer" for him in game) - to get assaulted and rather than help her after identifying her and her assailant - *walked by and ignored the attack while it was going on in the alley*. He rationalized that he could never beat up a a street-thug (despite having the element of surprise, various make-shift weaponry laying around) And his roomate saw him walk on by while it was happening. I remember the looks everyone gave each other around the room... it was a (whoa!) moment. Effectively he began systematically jettisoning *everything* about his real life I put into the game and he focused on the sole goal of "getting power".

He ran after every red-herring or inadvertant assumption he felt would get his "character" a leg up. in two sessions which took place over a time period of about two-weeks - he allowed his female real-life roomate and childhood friend get physically and sexually assaulted, got caught up in a sex-club where he was "the Donkey" in the "Donkey Show" - where he was in a gimp-suit with a saddle on his back and BDSM performers were riding him around, whipping him on stage, he ended up jacked up on mescaline and joining a cult that participated in human-sacrifice and cannibalism (these were in-game NPC adversaries that were supposed to be dealt with - not joined), because he thought they'd give him powerz. He'd become effectively homeless, lost *everything*... because he was so focused on getting supernatural power to deal with something that wasn't even really happening. I couldn't do a single scene with him without it going sideways and turning into a Tarantino-on-a-two-week-LSD-binge type scene.

And the conversations *after* these sessions freaked everyone out. Everyone else was playing regular characters doing fairly regular stuff, building intrigue, doing stuff pertinent to their own characters. Nothing crazy or whacky - no sex-clubs, cults, nothing *remotely* crazy. Meanwhile this other player was practically stroking out just playing like a maniac.

The end result is: he couldn't even play **himself**. Because his personal issues made playing RPG's nearly impossible due to the anxiety it produced in him. We talked about it at length, and after playing with me for quite a long time, he dropped from my group and got counseling. He's made a couple of attempts at joining back with us (which is councilor's tacit approval) and realized he likes the swashbuckling lighter-fare I run - and dips out when we're doing more hardcore stuff.

Quote from: jhkim;1123769I don't have your personal experience, but to my mind, it is a high bar to say that how someone plays their imaginary character is objectively wrong. I've seen and indeed played a lot of evil player characters in my campaigns, when the player was someone who was perfectly nice. I'm not sure of what line you're drawing that some role-playing crosses the line.

Mind you - this is not the *only* experience I've had in this arena. This is why I'm fully acknowledging that *I* play a part in it. I want 110% in my game. If it's a Supers game... I'm going to try to provide the 110% Super Hero Experience (which happens on many many many different levels I try to tailor to the PC(s) in question). If it's Horror... I'm going to try to scare the holy fucking shit out of you through your PC's experience. If we're doing Swashbuckling - I'm going to try to swash *all* the buckles! And that also implies the player engagement factor (in varying ways) must be high *and* pro-game as opposed to pro-personal issues.

And you're right - it's a high-bar to *say* someone is playing their character "objectively wrong" - but that calls into question the objective of playing. If we're all in agreement we're here to play a game where the emergent quality of interaction fills us all with wonder/joy/exaltation/fun etc. and the GM is having as great a time as the players - yes, we should always shoot for that. If we're having objective problems reaching that emergent state because a player(s) is incapable of getting past the most basic conceits of playing a character (much less one that is their literal fictionalized version of themselves) and those issues are causing problems for the other players, or worse: actual concerns about the individual in question. Then we have an objective problem, and I as the GM have to make the call when that happens. I can't let someone's subjective issues, no matter how much fun they convince themselves they're having ruin the game for everyone else.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this AT ALL. When I run my games, I'm shooting for maximum intensity and I want my players to have as much freedom as I can give them. Playing evil characters in my games are fairly routine. Playing good characters are as well. My sandboxes reinforce their conceits and the players are free to change those through play. But few things are ever easy - which is what, in my experience, makes my games satisfying. They are *not* for everyone.

Some player have a hard time with immersion and knowing where the line is - especially if those same players have deep rooted personal issues that they're blind to and the act of roleplaying those issues becomes heightened and they are not self-aware enough to realize it's now (or always has been) problem. These are the people that are playing RPG's for ulterior reasons in the times where I've encountered them. They have personality issues (who doesn't?) that can get in the way.

Again - it also depends greatly on the GM. This is why I say it's the GM's job to curate their group to produce the experience they want. My group ranges the spectrum in personality types, class, and education (and now age). But we all know why we're there. The game comes first, we can shoot the shit, talk politics, sports, later (and we do). Those that show up because they're dodging their issues they need to be dealing with in their life that they *can't* control - yeah I don't need those players. Call me when you get your shit together.

Quote from: Bren;1123789No human sacrifice would really cut down on the fun of running a Pantangian or Melnibonean sorcerer when playing Stormbringer. :(

I'm going to have to make a stipulation for this.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122898Splintered from here (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40972-Essay-quot-GURPS-and-the-Fate-Accessibility-Toolkit-quot).My thoughts on the matter aren't fully baked at the moment, and probably won't be for awhile. There's definitely a middle ground here, and it may just be that it's different for everyone. So until then I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

I really don't care about culture wars.

As I mostly GM, I often play bad guys, murderers, thieves, dark magicians, rapists, torturers and so on. Does that make me anything like them?No, not at all.

As a Player, I like playing kill-crazy barbarians. Does that make me a kill-crazy barbarian? Of course not.

But, I am probably completely missing the point here,

Quote from: soltakss;1124115I really don't care about culture wars.

As I mostly GM, I often play bad guys, murderers, thieves, dark magicians, rapists, torturers and so on. Does that make me anything like them?No, not at all.

As a Player, I like playing kill-crazy barbarians. Does that make me a kill-crazy barbarian? Of course not.

But, I am probably completely missing the point here,

You sound like you're in the fortunate position to not have had to deal with it at your table. I hope you continue in your good fortune, sir.

Once you get a few such encounters under your belt (god forbid) - you'll understand the rancor. I hope it never happens to you (or anyone else for that matter - so we can get on with the business of having fun.)

Quote from: soltakss;1124115I really don't care about culture wars.

This isnt, usually, about culture wars. Its about people on both sides of the fence going overboard and pretty much blurring the lines between fantasy and reality.

Exactly where the "you are what you play!" nuts get their idea from is a mystery. But its popped up for at least a hundred years. For some I think it is the inability to separate the "actor" from the "role". And has carried over into RPGs and gaming in general. Ive seen it directed at wargames too. And there was that blow-up last year with ExtraCredit on Youtube and their video about how playing a Nazi will make you one. But then ExtraCredits has been going slowly SJW nutters for a while now.

On the flip side the "immersion" fanatics are another hard one to pin down. Obviously part of it is an outgrowth of some players liking immersion. But a surprising number seem obsessed with it. And at the far end you have people either really obsessed, wanting to blur the lines between fantasy and reality. Storygamers push immersion hard quite a bit as do certain factions of LARPers. And with LARPers dangerously so.

If you never run into any of this. Great!

Right, I see. I've never encountered that, except in films.

I suppose if I played in a series of LARPs as the same nasty perverted character then it could be seen as part of me, but if I did that I'd probably play in other LARPs as other characters.

That's the beauty of RPGs, as a Player I can play very different characters across a wide spectrum.

I know someone who played a Yelmalian Sun Domer in a RQ game, he decided that they were racially pure, as they married inside their community, so he played his PC as a white supremacist bigot, which is so far away from what the Player was actually like as a person.

Some of us have no problem with playing PCs who are very different from our real selves. In fact, I thought that was what Roleplaying Games are about.

Everyone approaches it differently. Some play totally different from themselves and others play pretty much themselves and other play an ideal/idea, and others play some other permutation or just random based on the rolls.

I think some of the "you cant play villains you'll become/are one!" is probably a variation on the moral guardian problem. I've seen it a few times but oddly not recently that I can recall right off. But when 5e D&D came out there were a few sporadic declarations over on BGG for example. Some were just misinformed and changed their minds once it was explained. Others were practically obsessed that "D&D is only about violence and killing!" ad nausium.

Tenbones, how many times have you had a nutball player go batshit?

It sounds like you go "hardcore immersion" - which I dearly love, but rarely have a group who are that committed. I'm happy with 75% vs. your 110% (and we could argue that's maybe that's why I get 75%).  

For those of you who haven't had a player go batshit at your table, that's probably normal. However, when it does happen, it's rather memorable. Most of my gaming is public, aka events with strangers, and I've had my share of nutballs over the 4 decades, but even while the incidents have been memorable, the actual number has been very tiny overall.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1124177Tenbones, how many times have you had a nutball player go batshit? [...]

When players go batshit, you have more spell components to cast fireballs. Win, win. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1124214When players go batshit, you have more spell components to cast fireballs. Win, win. ;)

And soup ingredients too!

Greetings!

Hmmm...interesting. I suppose that I have been sheltered from being exposed to the bat-shit crazy players from the stupid train. I can recall only a very few individuals in my private games over the years that were kinda crazy-creepy, from which they were swiftly booted from the group, and never invited back. Not really surprising I suppose, as I tend to curate my private home groups very strictly. Most of the players in my private home groups have all been friends, relatives, and or spouses and girlfriends of the primary members. Most new people are vouched for through them, and as they are all quite familiar with my standards and how I run my campaigns, they have always been very good in their own judgement. Most of my friends and associates through the years have been veterans, mature, and excellent people. I haven't gotten whiny, crybaby SJW's, or weird, emo-fucking nutjobs that have all kinds of deep seated emotional problems.

In public games, like at Adventurer's League, well, that is an entirely different story. A large number of SJW's, and otherwise deeply fucked in the head emotional train-wrecks. Certainly a minority overall, but on any given meeting, perhaps 20% to 25% fit such categories to one degree or another. In public games, well, I am much more cautious and restrained. Such whining, emotionally damaged people are really not good for the hobby, and instead of seeking to play RPG's amongst other gamers I think more than a few of them need to be heavily medicated and attending professional therapy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1124177Tenbones, how many times have you had a nutball player go batshit?

It sounds like you go "hardcore immersion" - which I dearly love, but rarely have a group who are that committed. I'm happy with 75% vs. your 110% (and we could argue that's maybe that's why I get 75%).  

For those of you who haven't had a player go batshit at your table, that's probably normal. However, when it does happen, it's rather memorable. Most of my gaming is public, aka events with strangers, and I've had my share of nutballs over the 4 decades, but even while the incidents have been memorable, the actual number has been very tiny overall.

It's a more interesting question than you might think. Because *I* am the one that has slid into wanting more immersion as time has gone on. Mainly because I find it more compelling and "fun".

What I've found is I've had games that really turned into these transcendent (beyond the "let's have fun and throw dice") games because I figured out when people invest in their characters deeply, the stakes of the game can be raised organically to really crazy heights. But it's not something I as a GM can do alone - I need players that *want* to go there. I happen to be a GM willing to create maximal freedom for players to do that if they so choose. And sure, I'll facilitate it, and massage it to go there with every kind of hook imaginable. It's like fishing... sometimes the players bite... sometimes they migrate to other parts of the sandbox, and aren't interested in the bait currently offered up.

I've had two-players really go "bat-shit" as I noted above. But I've had players have very deep moments - that casual players would find "batshit", but we found very moving because we allowed ourselves to go there. And its not easy to do, obviously, yet when it happens it really makes the game memorable that we talk about for *decades*. I'm not talking about a bunch of grown men and women getting all Shakespeare necessarily, I'm just talking about when the players get so deep into playing their characters in the game, that it takes on very personal dimensions that only those players that were there really understand.

When the players via their PC's come to know the game-setting which they're playing as theirs. It's a place where their PC's really matter. It always starts impersonal like any other game - because you got to sink into it. But if things are clicking, you stop being Bob the Fighter, and become Robert IV, heir of Kings Reach, Knight of Crimson Order, wielder of Dawnreaver - legendary blade of the Dragon Lords, etc. etc. where each of those epithets was something accrued and earned and though the Players started as a humble Bob The Fighter, the scope of that meager character grew not because "he leveled up" on paper - those are just side-effects of "The Doing". Bob DID these things and transcended his basic write-up. My goal is to always transcend the rules. They're just how we express "The Real Game".

The "Doing" is what I find that is lost on a lot of players in the modern era. There is this gulf between a proscribed adventure - like a linear module, and an organic breadcrumb that players and GM's nurture together in a sandbox to become something far greater. I find a lot of modern gamers only want the breadcrumb, the linear proscribed experience, and not let go of that rail because "Doing" more is too.. much effort.

Or in my case - the possibilities I present cause anxiety. I've said for years my games tend to be "Game of Thrones" in complexity. Which for some on the surface find "exciting" - but the realities are most people just have watched the show or read the books, but never consider having to navigate such possibilities *themselves*. And you see how fast they wither, not from making just bad decisions - but from the the paralysis of "Doing". Tyranny of Choice is a real issue I'm acutely  aware of in my games, and more so these days where newb players enter my games and expect to have everything nice and proper with Quest NPC's with exclamations over their heads, and all the crazy races in the PHB to be running around and living like happy neighbors... and what do you mean "Do I bathe? do I have to? Change of clothes?... I didn't buy any extra clothes..." or any of the multitude of details I use in my game.

Before, I've found it helps good players wanting that experience of a deeper game, get into the game. These days it's a minefield. I've found like half-dozen new players attracted greatly to my style of GMing... but then suddenly struggling because their surface assumptions (reaaaaaaallly naive ones) about the world suddenly get them in hot water. And rather than play through the problem and overcome them, they curl up taking it as some kind of personal assault on their frail egos... rather than dealing with the problem *they* caused because they were playing by video-game logic.

It's a tightrope act - and *I* know I have a huge responsibility in wanting to game at this level. I feel conversely there has been a sharp downgrade in the quality of players who have gravitated to the hobby that *want* to play like this, because they're playing D&D (specifically) like it's part of some kind of "geek uniform" they're supposed to do.

I DO make a large distinction between Public (Convention) play and Private table play. When I ran convention tournaments, I made good clean adventures with multiple routes to solve whatever the problem was. But they were never what I would consider a "sandbox".

Quote from: tenbones;1124341It's a more interesting question than you might think. Because *I* am the one that has slid into wanting more immersion as time has gone on. Mainly because I find it more compelling and "fun".

Right. The usuallt normal form of immersion rather than the "I want to beeeeeee my character!" sort of immersion or the "Rolling dice and having rules gets in the way of muh immershun!"

Quote from: tenbones;1124341It's a more interesting question than you might think. Because *I* am the one that has slid into wanting more immersion as time has gone on. Mainly because I find it more compelling and "fun".

What I've found is I've had games that really turned into these transcendent (beyond the "let's have fun and throw dice") games because I figured out when people invest in their characters deeply, the stakes of the game can be raised organically to really crazy heights. But it's not something I as a GM can do alone - I need players that *want* to go there. I happen to be a GM willing to create maximal freedom for players to do that if they so choose. And sure, I'll facilitate it, and massage it to go there with every kind of hook imaginable. It's like fishing... sometimes the players bite... sometimes they migrate to other parts of the sandbox, and aren't interested in the bait currently offered up.

I've had two-players really go "bat-shit" as I noted above. But I've had players have very deep moments - that casual players would find "batshit", but we found very moving because we allowed ourselves to go there. And its not easy to do, obviously, yet when it happens it really makes the game memorable that we talk about for *decades*. I'm not talking about a bunch of grown men and women getting all Shakespeare necessarily, I'm just talking about when the players get so deep into playing their characters in the game, that it takes on very personal dimensions that only those players that were there really understand.

When the players via their PC's come to know the game-setting which they're playing as theirs. It's a place where their PC's really matter. It always starts impersonal like any other game - because you got to sink into it. But if things are clicking, you stop being Bob the Fighter, and become Robert IV, heir of Kings Reach, Knight of Crimson Order, wielder of Dawnreaver - legendary blade of the Dragon Lords, etc. etc. where each of those epithets was something accrued and earned.

Yes, although we never refer to our characters by their classes, it was very satisfying to be SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance because he, I, had done that and left the dead (and some regenerating) trolls in my wake.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1124460Yes, although we never refer to our characters by their classes, it was very satisfying to be SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance because he, I, had done that and left the dead (and some regenerating) trolls in my wake.

Blood and souls!

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1124460Yes, although we never refer to our characters by their classes, it was very satisfying to be SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance because he, I, had done that and left the dead (and some regenerating) trolls in my wake.

That reminds me, I recently had a player who referred to his character as "we". It took me aback when I first heard it. Eventually I grokked that he was referring to the player and the character as a plural entity. Once I figure that out, it was strangely satisfying to hear it.

Quote from: Zalman;1124488That reminds me, I recently had a player who referred to his character as "we". It took me aback when I first heard it. Eventually I grokked that he was referring to the player and the character as a plural entity. Once I figure that out, it was strangely satisfying to hear it.

Any context? I admit I'm curious.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1124520Any context? I admit I'm curious.

Sounds like an idiosyncratic pronoun use. At some point most players say something like, "I cut him in half with my axe" or "I cast fireball, when of course the player is doing no such thing "instead of referring to their character in third person, e.g. "Krongar cuts him in half with his axe" or "Archimedeus casts fireball."

Quote from: Bren;1124531Sounds like an idiosyncratic pronoun use. At some point most players say something like, "I cut him in half with my axe" or "I cast fireball, when of course the player is doing no such thing "instead of referring to their character in third person, e.g. "Krongar cuts him in half with his axe" or "Archimedeus casts fireball."

Indeed, no other context to speak of -- this was the player's first session. Instead of switching between first and third person, this player combined them. It gave the impression that both he and his character were directly involved. Well, as soon as I figured out who the other person was anyhow.