[Dresden Files] It‘s not Zilch play, but what is it?
Callan S.:
Wholeridge, I think there's some pidgeon holing, but even if mary sue play (as an example) is inside the social contract, it's still mary sue play. So it's not trashing anyone (as in saying they are a SC breaker) to suggest that. Not that I'm lending extra support to the Mary sue hypothesis - I'm still going with my own, that she's been burned in the past by imposed consequencs and so she's figured out how to game what system there is to basically do solo play. No negative connotation in 'game the system' either - we are playing games, after all.
I think your post does raise the interesting question of why is it a matter of "Why does she play that way?" when in terms of what mutual agreements/system there is, the way she plays is completely valid/within what mutual agreement there was? Aught this turn to look at the system instead and ask "Why does this play this way?", rather than the player who's play seemingly fitted quite well within the system?
Frank Tarcikowski:
Wholeridge, I think you are reading too much judgment into this thread. My posts are not about complaining that she ruined my fun (which she didn’t, by the way). I am simply stating my perceptions, including the fact that her way of playing seemed pointless and weird to me. The reason for that is not that Half-Japanese Werecat girls are not my type of cheesy. The reason is that I understand role-playing, fundamentally, as a group activity. And the Werecat player seemed so disconnected from the group.
Roger, you make some interesting points. I had a slightly different understanding of Mary Sue play, but I’m not sure whether that’s a material point or just a matter of definition. I thought Mary Sue play to be some sort of omnipotent, uber-cool NPC outshining the PCs by way of GM force. Or, in the rare case of a Mary Sue player character, by way of min-maxing / rules-fudging and application of social pressure by the player toward the GM in particular. This was not really what the Werecat player did, instead, she deliberately made her character ineffective.
Now, I’ve done that myself, had my character make bad choices, or deliberately built a character with a weakness. But she repeatedly did it in a way that would take her out of whatever the group was doing, and I think she did it on purpose. I gather from Roger’s and Callan’s replies that one explanation might be she did not want anyone to mess with her character.
This reminds me of the Immersion and Play for Show definitions of the Jeepers. Essentially, everything the Big Model covers is Play for Show according to those definitions. You interact with others, you play together, that’s what role-playing is about. Immersion as defined by the Jeepers is essentially something you do by yourself. Thus I wonder, why would you do that while you are sitting at a table with other people who also do it? In our group, we only had one player who acted like that, but what happens when all of the players do it? I’m afraid I don’t really get it.
- Frank
Paolo D.:
Hi guys,
to the TO: I think that what you saw was a symptome of Abused Gamer Syndrome, in particular (I quote from my link):
Quote
a. Come up with as colorful a concept as possible, preferably somewhat irrational, so that you can carry out the following safety-measures from “in character” and blame the character for “making” you role-play in this way.
...which, by the way, is pretty close to what Callan stated in his first post here.
However, I think that Abused gamer syndrome and Mary Sue play aren't mutually exclusive: playing a MS, at the player's side, is (also) about "protecting" your character from unexpected input at the social level, and from unexpected events at the fictional level... So it could be a symptome of Abused gamer syndrome.
wholeridge:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on June 07, 2011, 11:50:54 PM
You interact with others, you play together, that’s what role-playing is about. Immersion as defined by the Jeepers is essentially something you do by yourself. Thus I wonder, why would you do that while you are sitting at a table with other people who also do it? In our group, we only had one player who acted like that, but what happens when all of the players do it? I’m afraid I don’t really get it.
I think that I do get it, which is why I feel called to defend the girl. I don't know the "Jeepers" (I'm struggling enough trying to get a handle on GNS and its predecessors without a whole new set of definitions to argue about) but immersion is not something you can do by yourself. If you are by yourself, you have to be the whole world, which prevents you from immersing yourself in your character. An immersion needs others to be the "not my character" parts of the world. I imagine that the other characters were important to werecat girl's experience, even she didn't make her character important to you. Think of "why did her character act that way?" as a story which never got explored. I'm imagining that she is exploring that story over many episodes of play (probably with similar rather than identical characters), and you only saw a small, incomprehensible slice of her exploration. I further imagine that this is one of the main limitations of immersionist play: it plays best over a long campaign (similar to a novel in which one comes to deeply identify with one or more characters) and is much less satisfying in a single encounter with strangers (which is more like a short story).
What if all of the players do it? That depends on how the characters interact. With the right characters and situation I think it can work very will, generating novel-quality stories, rather than merely short-story quality stories. But it is more difficult, and it might take more time to come together. A player with the ability to work in multiple modes might be well advised not to try too much immersion in a one-time game with strangers, but not every player is a master of multiple modes. Of course, the girl might just be a jerk, but based on the information provided I see a possibility that she was engaged in serious exploration of a very troubled character.
- Frank
Frank Tarcikowski:
No, she wasn’t being a jerk, she seemed to be enjoying what she did and did not seem mindful of any reservations the other players might have had toward her style of play. I was just wondering about her motives and expectations. Frank, you make some interesting points.
Have you ever been to a Goth party? I think what you are saying is that the sort of “immersive play” you are describing is like Goths dancing: Very immersed in the music and their own motion, dancing all by themselves, but still it makes a difference that the other people are there, also dancing, also doing their thing. That would make the GM something of a DJ, in charge of playing the right music at the right time.
Whereas in the Dresden Files game, the other players were dancing together, sometimes touching, sometimes posing, singing along loudly, and frequently requesting songs from the DJ.
Does any of that make sense?
- Frank
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page