Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5019717" data-attributes="member: 957">I read an article a few weeks back (sorry, no link) that was about how WOW players think about characters.&nbsp; They had actually studied what part of the brain was active while talking about various characters.It was written in laymen's terms, and I'm nothing more than a layman on this topic, so perhaps some detail is lost, but the point was clear and interesting.When players talked about themselves, the part of the brain that controls thoughts about self was active.When players talked about other players, the part that controls thought about other people was active.When players talked about other player's *characters* the part that controls imagination was active.When players talked about *their own character* the part that controls thoughts about self was active.I agree that there are very different kinds of roleplaying.&nbsp; There are deep in character roleplayers who find it very important to know great details about their character's past and relationships and motivations and are really inside the skin of that character.&nbsp; And their are players that are enjoying vicarious empowerment through a kickass fantasy avatar of fairly generic nature.&nbsp; He may know little more than that his character is from vague, generic barbarian encampment, but that is made him tough and strong and damn good at killing orcs.&nbsp; And the next five characters will be from, functionally, the exact same vague village and will be strong and tough and damn good at killing orcs.&nbsp; But both these players are roleplaying.&nbsp; Both of them are having fun.&nbsp; And I am certain that if you read their brain activity, they would both be thinking of &quot;self&quot;.It is hard to even really describe the difference because it would not be accurate to say that the barbarian player is not &quot;deep in character&quot; or &quot;inside the skin&quot; of his role.&nbsp; But there is clearly some difference.&nbsp; The difference can be a problem or not.&nbsp; In extreme cases the generic character's lack of depth can be a source of disruption for the &quot;in the skin&quot; character's experience, like someone suddenly questioning you about a grocery list right when you were deeply engrossed in a great novel.&nbsp; It jolts you out of the moment.&nbsp; Whereas, from the other end, the &quot;poser&quot; is too hung up on admiring his character and wasting time that could be spent enjoying being potent, rather than just being else.Fortunately, it is my experience that the extremes are rare and quality players of both camps (and yeah, it is much more a spectrum than two camps) can share and play off each other far more than they conflict.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5019717, member: 957"] I read an article a few weeks back (sorry, no link) that was about how WOW players think about characters. They had actually studied what part of the brain was active while talking about various characters. It was written in laymen's terms, and I'm nothing more than a layman on this topic, so perhaps some detail is lost, but the point was clear and interesting. When players talked about themselves, the part of the brain that controls thoughts about self was active. When players talked about other players, the part that controls thought about other people was active. When players talked about other player's *characters* the part that controls imagination was active. When players talked about *their own character* the part that controls thoughts about self was active. I agree that there are very different kinds of roleplaying. There are deep in character roleplayers who find it very important to know great details about their character's past and relationships and motivations and are really inside the skin of that character. And their are players that are enjoying vicarious empowerment through a kickass fantasy avatar of fairly generic nature. He may know little more than that his character is from vague, generic barbarian encampment, but that is made him tough and strong and damn good at killing orcs. And the next five characters will be from, functionally, the exact same vague village and will be strong and tough and damn good at killing orcs. But both these players are roleplaying. Both of them are having fun. And I am certain that if you read their brain activity, they would both be thinking of "self". It is hard to even really describe the difference because it would not be accurate to say that the barbarian player is not "deep in character" or "inside the skin" of his role. But there is clearly some difference. The difference can be a problem or not. In extreme cases the generic character's lack of depth can be a source of disruption for the "in the skin" character's experience, like someone suddenly questioning you about a grocery list right when you were deeply engrossed in a great novel. It jolts you out of the moment. Whereas, from the other end, the "poser" is too hung up on admiring his character and wasting time that could be spent enjoying being potent, rather than just being else. Fortunately, it is my experience that the extremes are rare and quality players of both camps (and yeah, it is much more a spectrum than two camps) can share and play off each other far more than they conflict. [/QUOTE]

Verification