Aligning the players' and PCs' mental states (Forked from: Why the World Exists)

[FireLance]

Adapted from my post in this thread.

Thinking about the issues raised in the thread above led me to wonder whether certain game conventions, e.g. wish lists and the presumption that the characters would be facing "balanced" encounters, serve to increase the difference between the player's mental state and that of the character's, whether this could cause the character's in-game actions to seem artificial and contrived, and if so, what can be done to counter it.

It is arguable that when a novice player, who is himself unsure whether his 1st-level character could defeat the enemies his party is facing, says that his character stays and fights, the action seems more heroic than when the same 1st-level character is played by an experienced player who knows that his PC has a good chance of winning the fight.

To take another example, if a character finds a magic item similar to, but less powerful than, one on the player's wish list, would the player's feelings of disappointment that he did not get the item he wanted color the character's presumed excitement at finding a magic item in the first place?

Of course, good role-playing on the part of the player should go quite some way to making these non-issues, but I still wonder if there might be other solutions that do not rely on the player's role-playing ability.

So, assuming you agree with the design goals of more balanced encounters and wish lists in the first place, what can be done to make the player's mental state closer to the character's mental state, and presumably, make the character's reactions seem more realistic? Are there any other 4e rules or conventions that similarly increase the dissonance between the players' and the characters' mental states, and what can be done to address those as well?

 

[Fenes]

I do not want to have the character's and player's mental state be closer. Not at all. I do not want the player to feel hate, or fear, or similar things. The game should be enjoyed in a relaxed, fun atmosphere.

 

[The Ghost]

So, assuming you agree with the design goals of more balanced encounters and wish lists in the first place, what can be done to make the player's mental state closer to the character's mental state, and presumably, make the character's reactions seem more realistic?

Control the information. As players advance from novice to expert, they retain information from previous characters and campaigns. They learn how strong a creature is and what sort of powers it has. While novices, they act naturally to what we describe. As an expert, they tend to act more off the information they know, rather than what we tell them. So, how do I combat this problem? I cannot control what my players already know, but, I can control what I tell them. I can change the way I describe an encounter. I can change the way I describe monsters, items, spells, etc. When characters use divinations, the answers are always a little hazy. I can change up the abilities of the monsters to help keep them on their toes, or, better yet, use a different stat block for a particular creature. When they make knowledge checks, they get a vague reference to what the creature can do. The less information my players have, the more natural they will act.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I'd have given you XP for the post you forked from, if I hadn't already XPed you in that thread.

Good stuff.


RC

 

[ajanders]

I do not want to have the character's and player's mental state be closer. Not at all. I do not want the player to feel hate, or fear, or similar things. The game should be enjoyed in a relaxed, fun atmosphere.

Quoted for truth.
You disagree?
Read Shilsen or Rolzup's story hour. Do you really want your players sharing the same mental traits as Burne or Luna?

 

[Quickleaf]

I actually think the title of the thread is a bit misleading.

FireLance, it seems like what you're talking about it meta-gaming. Players with enough information and the presumed 4e agreement of balanced encounters might (a) not get into the theme of an adventure as the meta-gaming pulls them out of role-playing; (b) act as if their PCs are invulnerable and use less strategy and never retreat; and (c) get bored with predictability of the encounters/rewards.

Does that sum up what you're concerned about?

 

[Celebrim]

This is almost going to provoke me to fork this thread again, but on the subject of whether my mental state and the character's should align...

I'm something of a method actor when I RP. I try hard to get into character, and simultaneously try hard to be able to drop my character when I'm no longer playing.

As a player, I spend quite a bit of time thinking about how the character feels, how he behaves, and what motivates him. I'm never in it just to level my character up or obtain power. To me, being a player is as much or more about being the character and presenting an interesting and memorable figure in play, than it is about solving problems and getting 'the win'. If RPing was only about leveling up and getting 'the win', I wouldn't do it. There are all sorts of games I can play that are about getting 'the win', but only an RPG lets me emmerse myself in a character. I'll only last about three sessions in a campaign that appears to be just about leveling up, and has no characters in it (or to it). After that, for me it is a struggle. If I'm invited to a session that has no intra-party role-play, and where the players seem to think 'two-handed sword fighter' is a character concept, I'm probably going to find some excuses to never come back.

That is the kind of player I am. Occassionaly it creates conflict with power gamers at the table who are confused or even angry that I'm letting the character's personality get in the way of objective success and optimization. Likewise, I'm generally bored with them whenever character takes such a back seat to optimization that that don't bother having one, but instead have just a sheet of paper with alot of numbers on it and a list of goodies they own.

Staying in character is hard work. Being a great player at the table that brings enjoyment and novelty to every session is hard. I don't think I come close to always succeeding, but I do feel that I have succeeded in the past, brought smiles to the DM and heck, occasionally even awed the players and become the subject of 'campfire stories' years afterwords. Succeeding in that sort of characterization at a table ruled by out of game logic, where 95% of what is said is related to the game and not the world within the game, is almost impossible. I enjoy RP the most, when everyone - the GM and all the players - are making a very conscious effort to create an environment that encourages, fosters, and sustains in character interaction. If someone's focus on the game is so 'out of world' and off his character and away from the mentality of his character, that he's presenting the DM with 'wish lists' of magic items, then that represents a player who is probably an impediment to my fun. At the very least, my sort of player, if he wanted to acquire some particular item for his character, would never imagine that the way to go about it involved any sort of interaction with the DM, but instead would imagine all the different ways his character could interact with the world to acquire that item - finding someone that could make it, researching where such an item was known to be lost, praying to a divine patron to recieve such an item, and so forth. More to the point, they would probably be looking at the question of whether the character had even reason in character to consider such an idea as 'I want a +3 ghosttouch sword'.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't believe that aligning the PC's mental state and the player's mental state is a desireable or worthwhile goal.

Edit: To expand, my focus in play is on presenting a memorable character with goals and desires and plans, which will then run up against the events of the setting, the desires of other PCs, all sorts of complications and obstacles.

I don't "immerse" myself in my PCs - many of my PCs are characters I wouldn't like as people, but who are perfectly suited to living a really interesting life I enjoy playing my part in creating. For me, "this PC is interesting to observe in play" is far more important than "this PC is powerful", or "this PC is successful", or "this PC is heroic".

Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, it's very important that I play my PCs as consistently and true to their established personalities as possible, but that doesn't mean I have to always speak in-character or ever try to actually think as my characters do. In the absence of a desire to immerse yourself in a PC, in-character dialogue is just another tool in the box, and "thinking as your PC" is really unnecessary.

In fact, I personally probably do better when I take a step back and think about what makes sense for my PCs to do in a given situation, because my emotional or instinctual reactions and decisions are often very different to theirs. Of course, that's what happens when you deliberately create PCs with whom you have very little in common, as I do.

 

[S'mon]

I'm strongly in favour of immersion. "You are the hero in a world of monsters and magic" defines D&D and other FRPGs for me. I'm in favour of players creating PCs they can wear comfortably; if the player is not a good actor then that means a PC with personality similar to their own. For some players, that means not playing high-CHA, INT or WIS PCs. In fact my homegrown rules system does not include those as stats, although there's a Willpower stat for use in casting or resisting magical effects.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It comes down to two radically different playing styles.

One person likes the game to be the beer and pretzels type. Sit back, roll dice, laugh a lot, etc.

Another person likes to be their character, though not neccisarily in an unhealthy escapist fashion. They love being fully immersed in what's happening, and when their character cries, they cry (though perhaps more on the inside then on the outside.)

I, personally, very strongly favor the latter. I like games such as Promethean, where you really feel your character. I'm not saying my way is better, but then again, neither is yours. It's just different.

As for wish lists, I don't mind it if myself or another person, as DM or player, wants an item. What I do ask is that it's typically a very powerful, pricey, and rare item - you know, something you can put a quest around . Also, if they don't ask about it in game, they won't find it. It's not just gonna drop in their lap.