Immersion, Stance, and Playstyle Discussion

[the Jester]

Very insightful SBMC!

Yes, the unfolding discovery of the character over the first few games is a massive effect on how I play the character as well. An interesting thing is that I still discover new stuff about my pcs after playing them for a long time. There are always unexamined twists to their minds somewhere.

(Of course, you can find those in yourself through self-examination throughout your life too, so I guess it makes sense.)

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Hi SBMC,

I'm sorry, I'm really not parsing your post. I think you're using the "IC/OOC information split" part of the stance definitions to look at elements of character creation, right? Could you maybe phrase it in a different manner?

I think I see where you're coming from (there's an interplay in character creation between "What's optimal" and "What best fits the character I want to play") and I think I agree. Someone elsewhere said that a character sheet isn't really about the character; it's the interface the player uses to play the game.

The character sheet is sometimes used to determine things about the fictional character you play, so it sort of models them, but mostly it's about "What am I allowed to do with my character?" As such, you definately should be thinking as a player when you're doing character creation and leveling. I guess that's similar to Actor stance. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

All I've been seeing so far is that these stances don't seem to have any actual basis. No one plays as any one of those stances.

I agree more with an earlier post that there seems to be 3 facets of the player's interaction with the character:

1) How you view your character. This is whether you think as your character when playing or think as the player or a combination of the two.

2) How you make decisions for your character. This is what you base your decisions on when deciding what actions your character will take. Normally the difference between "metagaming" and "role playing". Still, there are more reasons than just those 2 for making a certain decision.

3) How you portray your character to everyone around you. If you act out the character in an accent with a certain speech pattern or talk about him in the 3rd person.

I think that a combination of these factors is more valid than the "stances" categorization.

I think each one of these factors could be expressed in a scale between the two major components of each one:

1) Game Piece <-----> Actual Person
2) Character Knowledge (role playing) <-----> Player Knowledge (metagaming)
3) Actor (In Character) <-----> Director (3rd Person)

I think that each person, if we actually wanted to categorize them could be express (albiet poorly) as 3 points, one on each scale.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I think you're right -- there's a couple of axes involved. I don't think "stance" captures it all.

I think the structure you're laying out there does a much better job of explaining the variables than I did. Thanks, Majoru! I may print that out and show it to some of my players, since my own words haven't been explaining it well.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No problem, the idea really came up due to reading this thread.

As an example, if we rate each of the Axis up there 1-5, I would be(IMHO):

1) 1 (Game Piece), I really don't view my characters as anything other than tools for playing a game, they can by used by other people without my feelings being hurt. The DM can tell me to change things about my character, I won't mind.

2) I'd say this is a solid 3 for me, I have been known to metagame in situations where I know the whole party is dead if I don't. I assume fairly often that my character knows most of what I know to avoid the rift here. Comments like "Well, everyone knows fire hurts Trolls, right? People tell stories about them all the time in inns." are common from me.

3) I think this is a 3 as well. Maybe a 2(closer to director). I talk out of character a lot. I refer to my character as *I*, but I rarely talk using his voice except when interacting with NPCs. Most battles are filled with OOC chat and jokes.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think there's a disconnect with axis 1. Or else I'm weird.

I seem to be perfectly capable of existing at either end of the "Game Piece - Actual Person" line. That is, I can make game-optimising decisions even while I'm considering my character an actual person and worrying about his relationship with his father or whatever. I don't think it's an axis -- I think they're independent values that may be more or less important to any given player. That is, BOTH can be very important or unimportant.

I like the notion of an "interface", but it still seems to lack. When I decide my character ought to have one more point of Dexterity, I don't think I'm adjusting the interface, I'm changing the very nature of my character.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think there's a disconnect with axis 1. Or else I'm weird.

I seem to be perfectly capable of existing at either end of the "Game Piece - Actual Person" line. That is, I can make game-optimising decisions even while I'm considering my character an actual person and worrying about his relationship with his father or whatever.

The way I see it that's why there is a difference between axis 1 and axis 2. If you view your character as an actual person, you can still make decisions for them based on metagaming or powergaming reasons. Thus, you still choose to charge or still choose to take the best feats you can, because you want the person you just made up to be good at combat as well.

That's also why it's a scale rather than one or the other. You can think of him as a person for the most part, but still think of him like a game piece when it comes to optimizing him.

 

[barsoomcore]

I kind of see what you're getting at.

I like to test these kinds of designs (cause that's sort of what I do for living) with edge cases -- is it possible for somebody to be high "Game Piece" and high "Character Knowledge"? That seems a little weird to me. How do you regard your character as just a pawn (something that possesses no knowledge or awareness) but still restrict your decision-making to things it would know rather than you? I guess somebody might be like that, but I bet the "high-Game-Piece-high-Player-Knowledge" people outnumber them hugely. Just like the "high-Actual-Person-high-Character-Knowledge" probably do.

So it looks like there's a very high correlation between the two categories. And I guess I get suspicious of a categorization scheme when I see what looks like a very high correlation between two categories. Is it really useful to make that distinction?

 

[SBMC]

Ok - based upon your feedback I'll redefine things here a bit:




Game Focus (character and player are irrelevant; winning the game is what counts):
Description: The character's actions are based on the player's motivations exclusively. The player takes little effort to develop the details of the character. The character is like a simple chess piece on the board - the game is a win/loose proposition not a roleplaying game. The player roleplays certain events because he has to and this leads to erratic behavior as the character simple executes the whim of the player at the time.



Required data: Character Sheet (The character sheet IS THE CHARACTER)



Typical attributes:

• During game play the player will always say what his character is doing with no information on exactly how that is done unless requested.
• The player wants to roll the dice for everything.
• Little or no skill ranks or feats in interactive skills/activities (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.); skill ranks and feats are almost exclusively focused on tasks (climb, jump, open locks, hide, etc.).
• Justifications for actions taken out of character will never be made as they are not needed – nothing is out of character since there is no “character”.

Player Focus (the player does what he wants to - the character does what he's told):
Description: What distinguishes this Focus type is that it typically involves the player justifying certain actions that may seem out of character for the character after the fact (or as the event occurs) to himself or others during game play - So the character's doing what the player wants, but there's an effort made to keep this plausible though many times it is a stretch.




The player decides the character's actions based on the player's priorities at the time and OOC knowledge is not kept separate from IC knowledge: This OOC knowledge is used to direct IC behavior, sometimes in an intrusive fashion. Many times this means that a character's behavior is erratic, like a paladin slaughtering an innocent person to get the last few XP to level. However there are broad parameters created that the player stays within as the personality and general psychology of the character is created and set.


Required data: Character Sheet, Brief un-detailed Character Bio


Typical attributes:

• During game play the player will speak in character when requested but most often will state what his character is doing and providing some information.
• Will normally want roll the dice for something rather than talk in character if he can.
• Little or no skill ranks or feats in interactive skills/activities (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff, Knowledge, Intimidate, etc.); skill ranks and feats are almost exclusively focused on tasks (Climb, Jump, Open Locks, Hide, Move Silently, etc.).
• Justifications for actions taken out of character may be OOC or IC; most often OOC

Author/Roleplaying Focus (playing the character - while the player is out of character):
Description: This Focus is distinguished by the character almost always acting in a manner consistent with his personality and psychology. OOC knowledge is not always kept separate from IC knowledge; however the character still acts "in character" regardless of the knowledge - the OOC knowledge might be used but only within the strict parameters of the characters personality and psychology. There will be slips into the "Player Focus" from time to time however that is always do to a need to survive for the character or the party and is justified in a detailed manner. If required the Player will actually look for a way for his character to "suffer" because of this action or accept willfully the DM administering one (such as the Paladin example given - no justification can be offered besides IC atonement. In the previous Focuses this act would be justified away OOC). If you are playing a character like yourself this is quite easy to do; even if your Shooting for a Game Focus.

Required data: Character Sheet, Detailed Character Bio


Typical attributes:

• During game play the player will speak in character when talking with other characters (PC or NPC) though without "Old English" or accents and the like. More like normal conversation.
• Will roll the dice or not - depends on the situation and what the DM wants.
• Has a mix of feats and skills consistent with the characters personality and psychology (this may mean that they are mostly task or interactive types or a mix). There might be one or two things that seem out of place; nothing major.
• Justifications for actions taken are always IC

Acting Focus (playing the character only - while the player is in character):
Description: This Focus is distinguished by the character always acting in a manner consistent with his personality and psychology. IC and OOC knowledge are always kept separate. The Player NEVER takes his character "out of character" regardless of the consequences.

Required data: Character Sheet, Intricately detailed Character Bio


Typical attributes:

• During game play the player will speak in character when talking with other characters (PC or NPC) typically with "Old English" or accents and the like. If talking OOC he will state such before speaking.
• Will roll the dice or not - depends on the situation and what the DM wants. Will always lean towards roleplaying everything where possible prior to any rolls. May expect the roleplaying itself provides bonuses (or penalties) on the rolls that follow.
• Has a mix of feats and skills consistent with the characters personality and psychology (this may mean that they are mostly task or interactive types or a mix - but always match the character).
• Justifications for actions taken are not necessary as the character never takes actions that are "out of character".

See attached - Focus Graphic – One extreme to the other

I think that perhaps things are a bit mixed up here. You see, I think there are really two portions to this. One is Character Creation and the other is Playing the Character. I really don' think this question can be answered in a simple manner:

Character Creation:
I think most folks, including myself go through a process. We all start out with either the "Game Focus" or the “Author/Roleplaying Focus”. The Player Focus and Acting Focuses are both specific to playing; not creating. Typically however we all know what character class(s) we wish to play and that in and of itself forms a portion of both of these Focuses by default.



Character Creation - Game Focus Precedent:
We create a character we want to play; attempting to maximize that character to win within the game.

See attached - Focus Graphic – Character Creation - Game Focus Precedent

The Game Focus includes everything you put down on your character sheet. The next step - the start of moving to the Author/Roleplaying Focus is the biography and background of the character - Noting here that the Game Focus is the foundation of the Author/Roleplaying Focus. We justify the Character Sheet by writing the biography and background to it. Or in extreme cases none at all; we just play with the character sheet.

Character Creation - Author/Roleplaying Focus Precedent:
In this case we write the biography and background of the character then move towards the Game Focus (or a variation of it) where we build the character directly around that Author/Roleplaying Focus - Noting here that the Author/Roleplaying Focus is the foundation of the Game Focus. We justify much of the biography and background by what we put on our character sheet while at the same time trying to maximize the abilities of our character within those same confines (Biography).

See attached - Focus Graphic – Character Creation - Author/Roleplaying Focus Precedent


With that we can see that by far most of us use the Author/Roleplaying Focus Precedent where we create the concept, then build around that.


Playing the Character
Here is where I think your original question comes to mind - however it can be answered at least in part by how the character was created; as that points to the tendencies (at least with this particular character) of the player.

However I would think few people ever actually partake in the full blown "Acting Focus", or if they do not at least in the first few levels as the real nature of the character unfolds. Here the Author/Roleplaying and Game Focuses would still hold as modifications, be them written or not, are made by the player for a variety of reasons (lets call these "roleplaying elements").


The reasons could be after playing it out; they don't like a particular roleplaying element of the character, the roleplaying element causes friction in the group (IC and/or OOC) that is unwelcome, you discover that the roleplaying element actually does not fit, even though you like it. There are probably others as well…


Then, after the first few levels, a player stays at the Game focus or moves on to the Author/Roleplaying or Acting Focus. However even here there is room for discussion. When leveling for example one would tend to again go back towards the Game Focus end of the spectrum (See Character Creation above) mode when choosing feats and skills or even adding additional classes to the character.
The immersion potion is so intangible that it is really not measurable in any meaningful way except by those at the same gaming table as compared to the environment the game is played in. Perhaps everyone comes in dressed up in costumes and perhaps they all come after work in their business suits…

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Whoa. That's a lot of detail, thanks.

I still think those are particular points along the scale, rather than absolute categories (for instance, I've had players who were a lot like your Author/Roleplaying focus category, but came up with their backstory during play rather than write a bio). But you've given a lot of food for thought here.