PDA

View Full Version : Having a connection to a character



A_Man
2013-12-15, 11:26 AM
So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

So, Im posing the question for those in this site since, from what I've seen, you all are albero give interesting incites for the other questions ive asked.

So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

Lorsa
2013-12-15, 12:23 PM
So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

So, Im posing the question for those in this site since, from what I've seen, you all are albero give interesting incites for the other questions ive asked.

So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

Can you define what sort of emotional connection you mean? Emotional connection as in you care about the character is one thing and emotional connection as in you feel what the character feels is another.

It is obviously a matter of taste but personally I prefer both types.

Mastikator
2013-12-15, 12:38 PM
IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.
If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.
It also makes the character unrealistic since the character won't have any real agenda other than to keep playing the game, there will be no concerns for retirement which ought to be on the character's mind.
IMO a character should be so well developed that if given to two different competent players they will both roleplay the same character, this is not the case if you're emotionally invested. I don't think a player should treat his character differently than how a GM treats the NPCs (other than the fact that a player invests more time and effort into their PC, but that's only because the PCs are more important to the story).
I also think that a player shouldn't be adversarial to the concept that they are living by the sword and how that always ends up, they should never metagame to survive.

Airk
2013-12-15, 12:48 PM
IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.
If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.

Simply put, this is false. Or at least, correct only a small percentage of the time. Yes, it's possible to have a "my guy" connection to the character, where you become attached to them as a 'version of yourself' and that's bad, but that's only one of the many ways you can form an emotional attachment to a character.



It also makes the character unrealistic since the character won't have any real agenda other than to keep playing the game, there will be no concerns for retirement which ought to be on the character's mind.

Again, this is false or, rather, correct only for one out of many types of 'attachment'.


IMO a character should be so well developed that if given to two different competent players they will both roleplay the same character, this is not the case if you're emotionally invested.

This is a fascinating view, but it makes the character seem rather like a straight jacket to me.



I also think that a player shouldn't be adversarial to the concept that they are living by the sword and how that always ends up, they should never metagame to survive.

Wow. This is such a...limited view of the situation. First of all, the idea that all characters are "living by the sword" says something about the types of roleplaying you are imagining - this is the general roleplaying forum, not the D&D 4E forum or something. There are lots of types of games.

Some players' emotional 'attachment' (I think a better word is emotional 'investment') in their character can be in the pathos - a character who constantly strive but never truly achieves their goals. Another person's emotional attachment might be taking joy in accomplishment, but it's entirely possible to have this sort of attachment without being meta-concerned about death.

Examine this (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/744#top) for ideas about different ways to approach your job as a player, and you can see that there are lots of ways one could have 'investment' without the paranoia you seem to associate with this sort of thing.

Remmirath
2013-12-15, 01:16 PM
It really depends on what is meant by an emotional connection. I find that if I do not have some sort of small attachment to my characters, I will tend to flip around to the other side and actively dislike them and work against them to get them killed. That might just be me, though.

I don't generally get much attached to them unless I've been playing them for at least a year, though; characters that I'd be rather upset about dying have all been in play for three years or more at this point, and even then, I wouldn't keep them from their deaths -- I've had many characters that I was quite fond of die, and I only hope for them to die in a fitting fashion and leave some mark before they go. If they don't, that's how it is. Having a connection such that you'll be upset anytime anything bad happens to the character is likely to cause frequent upset to you, but is not necessarily completely a bad thing if you're okay with that. I'd tend to recommend against it, however.

A connection in the sense of having a very good handle on their personality, what they are feeling, and what makes them tick is a good thing. That way you can play them better. If I don't have that sort of connection, that's when I begin to actively hope for the character's death.

Basically, I suppose, I think that ideally a player would have the same sort of connection to the character as an author would to a character in a story they're writing or an actor would to a role they're performing. Liking the character, or at least liking to play them, is I think also important; why play a character you don't like playing?

Failure to seperate yourself from the character is another matter entirely, and as far as I can tell completely unrelated to connecting to the character or liking them. One can easily have a character that they're extremely fond of but still seperate themself entirely from them, and also not use player knowledge to same them from certain death. I've seen it happen many times, and had it happen to me. I've also seen people use player knowledge all over the place for characters they don't care about at all. Quite a different thing.

A_Man
2013-12-15, 01:23 PM
Can you define what sort of emotional connection you mean? Emotional connection as in you care about the character is one thing and emotional connection as in you feel what the character feels is another.

It is obviously a matter of taste but personally I prefer both types.

Sorry, yeah I meant it as caring about the character.

Pex
2013-12-15, 01:42 PM
Emotional attachment to a character is the same as the attachment you place to a character in a book, tv show, or movie. If you don't care about the characters you stop reading the book, stop watching the show, or never see the movie again if not outright walk out of the theater.

This is parcel to why role playing games are different than board and card games. There's nothing to be emotional about with a meeple or the 4 of hearts.

Lorsa
2013-12-15, 01:46 PM
Sorry, yeah I meant it as caring about the character.

Alright. Well, if I didn't care about the character I wouldn't have very fun. It's like not caring about... whatever you do really. Without that emotional investment things simply isn't fun for me. If I don't care about the character I might as well run into an evil dragon head first and if I fail *shrug* why care? It was just a character that meant nothing to me.

So, for me, caring about the character is absolutely necessary for enjoyable play.

The Fury
2013-12-15, 01:47 PM
So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

Emotional connection will lead to the character not being played correctly? Could you elaborate, please? I realize that you didn't make this argument but you probably understand it better than me.



So, Im posing the question for those in this site since, from what I've seen, you all are albero give interesting incites for the other questionr
So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

Giving a proper response, no. No, it's not inherently wrong to have an emotional connection/investment/whatever with your character. With that said, I'll admit that in some groups doing that can be disruptive. Some players, and DMs too, think of RPGs as collaborative storytelling-- others think of them as battle simulators. Those that lean more towards the latter tend to think developing a character's story, thoughts and feelings as superfluous, I guess. Also, I suppose it's true that people that are emotionally attached to their characters tend to get more upset when they die.

Having said all that, I'd say that having some connection to your character is a good thing. When you come up with a well-rounded character it's a very
human response to empathize and get emotionally invested, in my opinion good fiction needs this kind of investment.

Kalmageddon
2013-12-15, 02:02 PM
I think you should care enough about your character in order to actually care about what happens to it and roleplay consequently. If that's an emotional connection or not I don't know, but otherwise I don't see much "connection" being possibile with something that doesn't exist.

A_Man
2013-12-15, 02:11 PM
Emotional connection will lead to the character not being played correctly? Could you elaborate, please? I realize that you didn't make this argument but you probably understand it better than me.


I'll just copy and paste his words, since, I can't give a real explanation since I thought he was talking about metagaming, which he argued he was not.


If you're attached to your characters, it is harder for you to play them as they are meant to be played. It is a bad thing to do as it will negatively affect your future playing with that character.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-15, 02:11 PM
Certain sense of detachement is vital in most sorts of RPGs, just as it's vital in many other games and contact sports.

For example, in martial arts practice, you will be kicked, punched, thrown, choked etc. Sometimes you can't, or aren't supposed to, do anything in retaliation so the other guy can practice. While sparring, you will sometimes lose while trying to stick to whatever rules of engagement. And yes, there will also be times when it would be easy to "win" instead by breaking or going outside of said rules. But doing so is bad form, and bad sportsmanship. So instead, you stick to rules, stick to the technique you are trying to practice, and don't get emotionally invested.

Of course, that's not the same as utterly not caring what happens to you. Within the rules, you are still trying to defend yourself, or to score points, or whatever. You just check your ego at the door, because it's not a real fight, and you're not in real danger. Because you don't really die if you lose, you also don't treat loss with same sort of severity.

A lot of people here will see the words "winning" and "losing" and jump out to say "but RPGs are co-operative games!" One, that is not true of all RPGs; and two, just because there aren't supposed to be win and lose conditions, doesn't prevent your mind from conjuring ones up.

The most pertinent "win condition" that crops up is that "everyone must have fun!". But this seemingly reasonable guideline is often stretched to the point of fallacy when people ignore that your fun is partly also your responsibility. It is your ability to stay detached, to shrug off pain or tragedy, to not get offended, that directly feed into your ability to have fun within confines of a game or sport.

And let's face it: many RPGs include several loss conditions such as death of characters as consequences of simply random variables, such as dice rolls. What's the point in getting angry at a random number generator, I ask? If you can't deal with such things, keep dice off the table.

tl;dr: It's perfectly reasonable to care for a character and do everything within the rules of a game to keep them alive; but if they get screwed by the very same rules, shrug it off. It's a game, and your character is a piece of paper.

1337 b4k4
2013-12-15, 02:21 PM
Here's how I look at it. If you find yourself making the decisions that are the in the best interests of your character rather than the best decisions that are in character, you have a bad emotional connection to your character. If you play a Sturm Brightblade and you don't put your character on the wall because they would almost certainly die, then you're badly invested in your character. If you choose a throw caution to the wind character who suddenly decides outside the dragon's den that she's suddenly interested in tactics and planning, you're too emotionally invested. Basically, if your character were to have some negative event happen that was perfectly fair within the rules of the world (whether by random die roll, or any other mechanic) and you would be upset enough to argue against it even though it's a perfectly fair outcome, you're too invested.

The best authors will tell you that they're emotionally attached to their characters, but that after a while the characters write their own story. So it is with RPG characters.

mucat
2013-12-15, 03:02 PM
Emotional attachment to a character is the same as the attachment you place to a character in a book, tv show, or movie. If you don't care about the characters you stop reading the book, stop watching the show, or never see the movie again if not outright walk out of the theater.
Exactly. Any story, including an RPG, only works when you're emotionally invested in the characters. As Dorothy Heydt said, the Eight Deadly Words for a work of fiction are "I don't care what happens to these people."

I can't imagine bothering to play an RPG if I don't care about the characters (not only mine, but the other PCs as well, and the major NPCs. In some cases, "care about" can mean "frikkin' hate", of course...)


IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.
If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.
That specific sort of emotional reaction would be unhealthy, sure...but again, you could say the same of any sort of fiction. (Misery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_%28novel%29), anyone?)

Sometimes the story is about watching characters you care about spiral into tragedy. King Lear would not become a better story if we said "let's change the ending so all the good guys are alive and happy." But it would be a pointless story if the audience were to say "Bad things are going to happen to these characters, so let's not give a **** about any of them."

TheThan
2013-12-15, 03:27 PM
There’s a lot of ways to role-play.

I mean, we’re playing make-believe with dice, there’s no reason why you can’t have a self insert as a players (dms no, that’s a slippery slope). So you could act out your fantasy of being that beefed-up loincloth clad barbarian, while in reality you’re actually a 98lb weakling. You know what, that’s fine.

However, some people like to create a character that’s not a self insert. They want to create an entire fictional person that’s not based on their own personality or private fantasy. They want to act, and play a role. You know what, that’s fine.

Some people just play their stats, and treat their character as if it was a blank-slate video game character. They’re more interested in roll-playing, not role playing. You know what, that’s fine too.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s not really any right or wrong way to rp characters. As long as you’re not being disruptive, and nobody is offended, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t form a connection with the character your playing.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-15, 03:45 PM
Sorry, yeah I meant it as caring about the character.

I think it's reasonable. Just don't do anything stupid like jumping off a bridge when your character dies.

A_Man
2013-12-15, 04:04 PM
I think it's reasonable. Just don't do anything stupid like jumping off a bridge when your character dies.

XD

I think we had a situation somewhat like that before.... Everything ended well, and the player is doing well, I think (he hasn't be on ever since his computer broke down), but yeah, as a site we've learnt to not become our characters. (may be TMI though.... XD)

Lorsa
2013-12-15, 04:38 PM
IMO emotions are neither right nor wrong. However I personally prefer not to be emotionally invested in the character, I can see no benefit in it.

It is basically the same benefit you get from watching a game of football when you want one of the teams to win as opposed to one where you simply don't care either way. The emotional investment increases tension, and tension leads to more adrenaline and adrenaline is usually quite enjoyable.

I would actually argue the opposite; I see no benefit in NOT being emotionally invested.


If you're not distanced from your character then you'll take everything in game personally, this will cause you to react with your own emotions rather than the characters emotions. The game becomes about using your character as an avatar for yourself, if that is the case then you're not exploring other points of view and the other players will have a hard time seeing your character, the GM too.

No. There is nothing about caring for your character that would lead to you taking everything in the game personally. That's simply being immature and has nothing to do with the emotional investment.

Furthermore, I would argue that it is much easier to use your character's emotions as guidelines for your actions if you DO have an emotional connection to . How can you react with a character's emotions if you're not connected to them? That seems contradictory to me.


It also makes the character unrealistic since the character won't have any real agenda other than to keep playing the game, there will be no concerns for retirement which ought to be on the character's mind.

I am confused. How did you get from emotional connection to there being no real agenda for the character? Isn't it actually [i]easier to form an agenda for a character that you DO care about and is emotionally connected to? Otherwise, where do you get the incentive to do anything at all? And if you don't care about the character, isn't it actually MORE likely that your characters agenda will simply be based on... well other things than the actual character? I woulld say that having an emotional investment and connection is a necessary condition for any sort of character agenda.


IMO a character should be so well developed that if given to two different competent players they will both roleplay the same character, this is not the case if you're emotionally invested.

That will never ever ever ever happen. It simply isn't possible to write down a personality so complete, with all possible scenarios that could happen and the character's reactions to them that two people would play exactly the same way. Thinking it is true is just deluding yourself, and again it has nothing at all to do with emotional investment.


I don't think a player should treat his character differently than how a GM treats the NPCs (other than the fact that a player invests more time and effort into their PC, but that's only because the PCs are more important to the story).

I think there's a distinct difference between NPCs and PCs. They should be treated differently. You even said why (PCs should ideally be more important to the story, or rather, the story is about the PCs).


I also think that a player shouldn't be adversarial to the concept that they are living by the sword and how that always ends up, they should never metagame to survive.

Always? While it is certainly a possibility that a PC might die, it's not a necessity. Metagaming to survive has nothing to do with caring about characters or being connected to their emotions. Or do you have any proof that says otherwise?


--lots of stuff--

tl;dr: It's perfectly reasonable to care for a character and do everything within the rules of a game to keep them alive; but if they get screwed by the very same rules, shrug it off. It's a game, and your character is a piece of paper.

I'm sorry, but I've been waiting a long time to do this.

Basically what you're saying is "if, by whiskey"?

If by caring about a character you mean X then it's good, but if you mean Y then it's bad. What sort of argument is that?


There’s a lot of ways to role-play.

I mean, we’re playing make-believe with dice, there’s no reason why you can’t have a self insert as a players (dms no, that’s a slippery slope). So you could act out your fantasy of being that beefed-up loincloth clad barbarian, while in reality you’re actually a 98lb weakling. You know what, that’s fine.

However, some people like to create a character that’s not a self insert. They want to create an entire fictional person that’s not based on their own personality or private fantasy. They want to act, and play a role. You know what, that’s fine.

Some people just play their stats, and treat their character as if it was a blank-slate video game character. They’re more interested in roll-playing, not role playing. You know what, that’s fine too.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s not really any right or wrong way to rp characters. As long as you’re not being disruptive, and nobody is offended, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t form a connection with the character your playing.

Indeed you are correct. There are many ways to roleplay.

But what do these ways have to do with emotional connection and caring about the character? Either of these ways could have any sort of emotional investment I would say.


EDIT: Wow, I guess I was feeling particularly argumentative today. Too little roleplaying this weekend, it gets on my nerves!

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-15, 04:54 PM
If by caring about a character you mean X then it's good, but if you mean Y then it's bad. What sort of argument is that?

No, it's about what caring for your character makes you do. It's okay to care for a character, and do what you can within the rules to win; but if you lose by those same rules, you accept your loss. Because it's a game, not your life and death. Getting upset, cheating and complaining about the rules all fall into a set of being a sore loser, and no-one likes those.

Lorsa
2013-12-15, 05:19 PM
No, it's about what caring for your character makes you do. It's okay to care for a character, and do what you can within the rules to win; but if you lose by those same rules, you accept your loss. Because it's a game, not your life and death. Getting upset, cheating and complaining about the rules all fall into a set of being a sore loser, and no-one likes those.

Aye, that's true. Basically it boils down to "don't be immature" I think.

TheThan
2013-12-15, 06:18 PM
Well ok. There’s a certain point when you have to sit back and realize that it’s a game of make-believe, and that you shouldn’t get too attached to your characters, since they’re not real. If someone is having problems separating their fantasy from reality, maybe they shouldn’t play RPGs at all. Losing a character shouldn’t be a life alternating event

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-15, 06:32 PM
I don't think separating fantasy and reality is the problem. In fact, I'd say roleplayers in general are better at separating the two from each other. It's just that things we know to be unreal can still cause real emotions. It requires a degree of skill and proper attitude, which I would call either humility or sportmanship, to keep those emotions from influencing your actions.

jedipotter
2013-12-15, 08:17 PM
So, recently, I had a discussion with a couple RPers on a different site, about having a connection with your character. One said it was a bad thing to do, since it would lead to not playing the character correctly, while I, and the others, argued that not having a connection with your character makes it harder to play them with real emotion, and doesn't make a fun roleplay.

So, is it wrong to have an emotional connection with your character? Should it be limited, or should it be cut out entirely?

It sure is better to have a connection then not have one. And while ''it is just a GAME'' is one way to play, it is a way I don't like. The whole ''oh my character, fighter 437, goes into the room full of acid'' or ''my guy does not eat and sleeps in a rain water barrel.''

Though the other side is bad too ''My Awesome character is a work of art and 73 pages long.....so I avoid the goblin with the sharp stick, I don't want to risk death."

Kane0
2013-12-15, 09:03 PM
I like to have a connection to/with my character, it gives them that little bit more life to me.

The Fury
2013-12-15, 10:11 PM
I'll just copy and paste his words, since, I can't give a real explanation since I thought he was talking about metagaming, which he argued he was not.

OK then. His argument still doesn't make much sense to me, but thanks for filling me in anyway.


Aye, that's true. Basically it boils down to "don't be immature" I think.

Good advice for any pastime, I reckon.

Elkreeal
2013-12-15, 11:16 PM
I think one should passionately interpret and act out his character's personality while compromising enough not to be over the top or obnoxious or pass any limit,.

Without any connection to a character at best the only thing anyone would feel would be anger if they start losing or do something with miserable outcome and try to save their asses (in accordance with what I've seen). If a player doesn't try to picture his character as something "living" and not a joke or something just for fun they won't be able to have as much fun nor will they play the character as correctly as someone that is attached to his character.

Here's my bottom line: I think that anyone that plays a character he doesn't get attached too is because they're not making characters they like or they're missing the point entirely.

ReaderAt2046
2013-12-16, 12:20 AM
I'd just like to add that I had a connection to one of my characters, and I was ecstatic when he died, because he died in a far more heroic fashion than I had dared to hope for. So an emotional connection doesn't necessarily mean that you want the character to survive at all costs.

Jack of Spades
2013-12-16, 12:43 AM
Care about your character exactly as much as you need to in order to maintain fun/interest in the face of adversity. Find the spot where you'll mourn the loss of a character (or the failure of an important goal) but not pout about it. Stay in a place where you can understand and act on the character's negative emotions without feeling them yourself.

Generally, the right spot is just about exactly the level of connection you feel toward your favorite characters on a TV show.

It's been mentioned above that RPG's are basically random number generators. If you're a very competitive person, that randomness may make things difficult for you, as a good GM should be making sure you don't win every fight.

Basically, it's all about learning to lose gracefully. If you can do that out of character, go along your merry way with whatever level of connection you'd like.

Edit for some context:
I game with an increasingly large pool of people. There are groups that make their characters serious, full people. There are groups that make every character a walking joke. But in both kinds of group, most people are able to play their characters pretty well and entertainingly because they're maintaining right around the TV-show level of connection.

Get too attached, and you'll let negative emotion seep out of the character in a disruptive way.

Get too detached, and you'll fail to catch the character's positive emotion and the game will cease to be fulfilling/fun/engaging.

Kitten Champion
2013-12-16, 01:07 AM
I should connect to my characters more, I think.

So, basically, I have commitment issues. I fall madly in love with a character concept, I get really antsy to RP it, then I finally get to and after about 4-5 sessions in I've already started cogitating on my next character concept unconsciously. After inspiration strikes and my new splendorous character is in my life, I kind of awkwardly go through the motions with my ex until the relationship ends and I'm free to move on. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-16, 02:35 AM
Aye, that's true. Basically it boils down to "don't be immature" I think.

I don't really like using terms like "mature" or "immature". I had some trouble explaining why, but a recent other thread reminded me of the reason:

What people call "maturity" is a grab-bag of traits that often have little to do with each other. And a lot of those traits are far more important than others.

For example, it's much more important to have humility and good sportmanship, than to have supposedly "mature" sense of humor or interests, because the former actively prevents trouble caused by the latter (at least, when rest of the group share the trait). To contrast this, a person with a "mature" (read: no) sense of humor and bad sportmanship is absolutely the worst kind of spoilsport.

There are reasons why we associate whiny egoism with immaturity, and it is true it often goes alon with immature sense of humour, but it's not automation. Same goes for other immature traits. I can deal with a naive person who tells **** jokes, as long as he or she remembers it's a game and has a positive attitude towards it. It's hell dealing with adults who make mountains out of molehills.

Airk
2013-12-16, 09:28 AM
I don't really like using terms like "mature" or "immature". I had some trouble explaining why, but a recent other thread reminded me of the reason:

What people call "maturity" is a grab-bag of traits that often have little to do with each other. And a lot of those traits are far more important than others.

For example, it's much more important to have humility and good sportmanship, than to have supposedly "mature" sense of humor or interests, because the former actively prevents trouble caused by the latter (at least, when rest of the group share the trait). To contrast this, a person with a "mature" (read: no) sense of humor and bad sportmanship is absolutely the worst kind of spoilsport.

There are reasons why we associate whiny egoism with immaturity, and it is true it often goes alon with immature sense of humour, but it's not automation. Same goes for other immature traits. I can deal with a naive person who tells **** jokes, as long as he or she remembers it's a game and has a positive attitude towards it. It's hell dealing with adults who make mountains out of molehills.

You're overcomplicating things.

There is a strong positive correlation between people who are capable of tempering their sense of humor to make it appropriate to the people they are with, and people who are capable of regulating their behavior in other ways.

Simply: To be mature is to understand what sort of behavior is appropriate and then behave that way. If you can't tell that people don't appreciate your jokes and adjust appropriately, you're not mature, even if that's "easier" for someone to deal with than other forms of immaturity. Fullstop.

Red Fel
2013-12-16, 10:32 AM
I don't think connection is a bad thing to have, if handled well. A strong connection grows from understanding; a player with a strong connection to his character is better able to RP the character's actions, and helps with immersion and enjoyment at the table. A strong connection enables the player to, once play begins, cease to be the player playing the character and become simply the character.

The problem isn't connection; as mentioned, the problem is overprotection. A player who likes his character too much, who wants to preserve it, is no longer enjoying a connection to the character. He has stepped out of the role of the character, and is now trying to protect it from the outside, even if it means taking actions which are no longer in line with the character's concept. The puppeteer is now visible, and he is too busy keeping the strings from tangling to perform his role in the show.

For me, "connection" is the wrong word; "enjoyment" is what I get. If I can enjoy a character, I will keep coming back to them. As I describe above, when I play a character I play the character, so I'm less concerned with actively thinking about my connection. It just happens. For me, the enjoyment - like enjoying the actions of a character in a book or on TV - is key. This allows me, after I step back out of character, to look back on my character's antics and say, "I can't wait for next week's episode!"

And yet, I find I can't enjoy characters if they're perfect. If they win every battle effortlessly, if they manage to wriggle out of peril unharmed, they may grow less interesting. It smacks of bad writing. So when my character takes the hit, my character takes the hit. If my character is cursed, as long as it advances the story, I tune in to see what happens next. If my character dies... Well, the writing team made a character this good, so let's see what they come up with next! My enjoyment doesn't preclude me from accepting a character's passing.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-16, 10:39 AM
This is parcel to why role playing games are different than board and card games. There's nothing to be emotional about with a meeple or the 4 of hearts.
Hey! I am very, very personally attached to the blue meeple, thank you very much. :smallfurious: Meeples are people too!

BWR
2013-12-16, 10:58 AM
Frozen Feet said basically everything worth saying. Having an emotional connection to the character makes the game more vivid and engaging. There are games where there isn't really any point in having a deep connection to your PC, e.g. Paranoia or CoC, some D&D games etc. The characters are meant to be disposable and are more like faceless protagonists who the events unfold around than the point of the game. Sometimes a deep personality and close emotional ties to the character gets in the way of the game.

Other times, being really tied to your character helps the story and the drama. E.g. I played a game where my character found out his daughter was involved in Bad Stuff. The "high treason, honorless execution, shame and disgrace on your family for generations" kind. She even had a good reason for it and the whole thing could have been swept under the rug with very few people any wiser but it was love or duty. He chose duty.
These were characters the GM and I had spent years playing and were very attached to and I was in tears by the end of the session. You don't get that kind of emotional response to just any character.
But both the GM and I treated the game like a game, like a work of fiction, and didn't get pissy IRL.

Mastikator
2013-12-16, 02:07 PM
Frozen Feet said basically everything worth saying. Having an emotional connection to the character makes the game more vivid and engaging. There are games where there isn't really any point in having a deep connection to your PC, e.g. Paranoia or CoC, some D&D games etc. The characters are meant to be disposable and are more like faceless protagonists who the events unfold around than the point of the game. Sometimes a deep personality and close emotional ties to the character gets in the way of the game.[snip].

This is a response to everyone that has quoted me in this thread because I need to make this point.
Not being emotionally invested in your character does not make it a faceless protagonist.
The character having a deep personality can only happen when you don't invest yourself into it. You have to create something new, something other than yourself.
If you're emotionally invested you'll easily and inevitably slip into the character just being an extension of yourself, then it's a mask with nothing behind but your strings.
The only way you can create a character with a fully fleshed out deep personality with quirks and traits and all is if you detach it from yourself, when you get to that point you're not playing an action/adventure/exploration game anymore, you're playing the role of a character in a story, a character that isn't just a slightly different version of you. And I promise you it is more interesting.

mucat
2013-12-16, 02:56 PM
Other times, being really tied to your character helps the story and the drama. E.g. I played a game where my character found out his daughter was involved in Bad Stuff. The "high treason, honorless execution, shame and disgrace on your family for generations" kind. She even had a good reason for it and the whole thing could have been swept under the rug with very few people any wiser but it was love or duty. He chose duty.
These were characters the GM and I had spent years playing and were very attached to and I was in tears by the end of the session. You don't get that kind of emotional response to just any character.
Man. Hurts just to hear that summarized.


This is a response to everyone that has quoted me in this thread because I need to make this point.
Not being emotionally invested in your character does not make it a faceless protagonist.
The character having a deep personality can only happen when you don't invest yourself into it. You have to create something new, something other than yourself.
If you're emotionally invested you'll easily and inevitably slip into the character just being an extension of yourself, then it's a mask with nothing behind but your strings.
The only way you can create a character with a fully fleshed out deep personality with quirks and traits and all is if you detach it from yourself, when you get to that point you're not playing an action/adventure/exploration game anymore, you're playing the role of a character in a story, a character that isn't just a slightly different version of you. And I promise you it is more interesting.
The first part of your post is logically flawed, in my view, which is fine; we can debate that point. The second part is patronizing and more than a little insulting to those who disagree with you here.

As for the logical flaws: you treat "emotionally invested" as having no possible meaning other than "investing yourself" (emphasis yours). As people have pointed out throughout this thread, emotional investment is something that happens every time someone gets immersed in a good work of fiction. Having an emotional attachment to a fictional character doesn't mean they are a self-insert; it means that you suspend disbelief enough to care about the character. You allow part of your brain to react as if the story were happening to a real person (though not necessarily to yourself.)

If you think that "emotional investment" is the wrong term to use for that bond people feel for the characters in a book, a movie, or an RPG, fine. Propose another term, and a lot of us may well say "yeah, that's a good way to put it. I'll use that word from now on."

But to continue your post as if everyone who disagrees with you on terminology must actually be playing "different versions of themselves" is simply rude. "I promise you it is more interesting" does not make a shred of sense unless you think you're talking to people in need of that lesson.

Mastikator
2013-12-16, 10:13 PM
I'm not saying that all forms of emotional connection is just one thing.
I'm not talking about merely emphasizing with a character, that happens always.

If you want to talk about other definitions or forms of things that I'm not talking about and use that as a strawman to call my post "logically flawed" then I'm not going to feel bad if you feel patronized.

I'm not treating emotional investment as only having one definition, I'm treating emotional investment as having a form that is common and detrimental in additions to other forms that aren't noteworthy.

Jay R
2013-12-16, 10:49 PM
Whether it is a good idea or a bad idea is immaterial for me, because it's not possible for me to develop a character without an emotional attachment. From Darkstar in 1975 to Pteppic in 2013, I know who each character I've designed is, and I care about them.

You care about yourself. This doesn't mean to treat other people unfairly, or to get upset when things don't go your way. You care about your character. This doesn't mean to treat other characters unfairly, or to get upset when things don't go your character's way. What's the difference?

mucat
2013-12-16, 11:33 PM
I'm not treating emotional investment as only having one definition, I'm treating emotional investment as having a form that is common and detrimental in additions to other forms that aren't noteworthy.
Fair enough; with that clarification, your stance makes a lot more sense to me. Rereading the post I responded to before, it still seems to me that you were assuming that other posters in this thread are advocating unhealthy overidentification, rather than those "other forms that aren't noteworthy." I'll assume I was just misunderstanding your point.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-17, 11:10 AM
You're overcomplicating things.

No, I'm not, for one simple reason: a lot of my players were, are and will be kids or teenagers.

Expecting to appreciate same sort of humour as me is pure insanity. Expecting them to recognize and know when to stop in every situation is also wishful thinking. But it's also not necessary for a functioning game, if they do stop when I tell them to, and don't get upset about it. Discipline and good sportsmanship are much more important.

You're also forgetting my contrast point. A person with a crude sense of humour might be annoying, but still better than someone who takes themselves and the game with utmost gravity. If people were books, the difference is like that between One Piece (the manga) and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Lorsa
2013-12-17, 11:33 AM
I don't really like using terms like "mature" or "immature".

Alright. You have issues with the term because some people use it poorly. So what I wanted to say then is that there's a difference between having an emotional connection and behaving in a poor manner when bad things happen to it. Those are two different discussions and one doesn't have to lead to the other.


I'm not saying that all forms of emotional connection is just one thing.
I'm not talking about merely emphasizing with a character, that happens always.

If you want to talk about other definitions or forms of things that I'm not talking about and use that as a strawman to call my post "logically flawed" then I'm not going to feel bad if you feel patronized.

I'm not treating emotional investment as only having one definition, I'm treating emotional investment as having a form that is common and detrimental in additions to other forms that aren't noteworthy.

Perhaps it would've helped if you'd more clearly defined exactly what sort of definition you were using then. The OP seemed to want to talk about those kinds of definitions you either consider to always happen or be unnoteworthy.

Most of us don't consider having an emotional connection to a character to be the same as investing yourself into the character.

Mastikator
2013-12-17, 12:48 PM
You're overcomplicating things.

There is a strong positive correlation between people who are capable of tempering their sense of humor to make it appropriate to the people they are with, and people who are capable of regulating their behavior in other ways.

Simply: To be mature is to understand what sort of behavior is appropriate and then behave that way. If you can't tell that people don't appreciate your jokes and adjust appropriately, you're not mature, even if that's "easier" for someone to deal with than other forms of immaturity. Fullstop.

Though I basically agree that maturity is much about understanding appropriate protocol for a given social circumstance this example you bring up is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Your sense of humor does not indicate your maturity, nor does censoring it (unless it's maybe kids or a very touchy nerve, like joking about alcoholism to someone who lost someone to a drunk driver). Making silly jokes or doing things to amuse yourself is not immature, I suspect that this erroneous belief stems from the fact that many adults are stressed and therefore not funny, and kids see the "not funny" part and think that being mature is about always being serious. It's not. Being mature is about taking responsibility for your actions and your life, it's about being considerate of other people. And it is not, absolutely not about aversion to being funny, or silly or stupid. Using a silly straw or wearing a silly hat or making puns do not make you immature. Part of being mature is knowing this so it always annoys me when people accuse others of being immature for the wrong reasons, not only is it wrong but it IS immature.

Sorry for straying a bit off topic, I'll tie it back. I'd agree with Lorsa that it's about maturity to behave correctly with your character, yes it is sportsmanship too. I think the two are connected imho.

RustyArmor
2013-12-17, 01:12 PM
Half asleep so didn't read most of the replies :smalltongue:
But I think its good to have at least some connection to a character, it can help you RP situations a tad better even if it is just a small part. You don't want to make your clone, just add a small aspect of yourself into it. In my group people that do this just seem to take more "care" of their character and not just see it as a game where if they die they just make new character without a second thought.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-18, 08:56 AM
Alright. You have issues with the term because some people use it poorly. So what I wanted to say then is that there's a difference between having an emotional connection and behaving in a poor manner when bad things happen to it. Those are two different discussions and one doesn't have to lead to the other.

Talking about emotions without talking about what those emotions make you do is rather pointless.

To others: I see a lot of arguments made that emotional investment makes a player unable to stay "true" to a character.

This may be true, or it may be not; my question is, is that actually a problem?

Bear with me: in most traditional RPGs, there's still the game part in addition to the roleplaying. Slipping "out-of-character" is not a grave sin when it doesn't disturb the flow of the game. Giant had a good bit on this: "Choosing to react differently." (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

It's perfectly possible to play most RPGs, such as D&D, while essentially being yourself. This won't necessarily even be very noticeable to other people. Yes, it's not very imaginative, and yes, it's going to get boring after a while. But RPGs aren't high art, not everyone is or even needs to be a master in crafting interesting characters.

Hell, I'm of the opinion that a lot of time, it would improve one's roleplaying if they really tried to put themselves in the situation. A lot of human experiences are fairly universal, so when confronted with a game situation and unsure how to act, it's perfectly acceptable to ask: "How would I feel?" This helps to bring a bit of common sense and texture into games, such as the realization that wandering around in dark, dank dungeons is quite unfun, through asking questions like "What does it smell like?"

Lorsa
2013-12-18, 06:53 PM
Talking about emotions without talking about what those emotions make you do is rather pointless.

Well, I don't think the emotions we are talking about here have to make you do certain things. Some of the arguments here is that emotional connection is bad because it makes you behave in a way that is bad. I am saying that an emotional connection in no way have to make you behave poorly, and even if you do, it's not the emotions that are bad, it's the behavior.

That's what I mean with it being two different discussions. Emotional connections aren't bad because someone acts poorly because of them, it's always going to be the behavior that is bad.

This is also what I meant with maturity, being able to handle your emotions in a way that is non-destructive to you and your surroundings.

WalkingTarget
2013-12-18, 09:26 PM
It's perfectly possible to play most RPGs, such as D&D, while essentially being yourself. This won't necessarily even be very noticeable to other people. Yes, it's not very imaginative, and yes, it's going to get boring after a while. But RPGs aren't high art, not everyone is or even needs to be a master in crafting interesting characters.

Hell, I'm of the opinion that a lot of time, it would improve one's roleplaying if they really tried to put themselves in the situation. A lot of human experiences are fairly universal, so when confronted with a game situation and unsure how to act, it's perfectly acceptable to ask: "How would I feel?" This helps to bring a bit of common sense and texture into games, such as the realization that wandering around in dark, dank dungeons is quite unfun, through asking questions like "What does it smell like?"

In my old college gaming group it became a running gag eventually that my characters were all essentially "[WalkingTarget] in a hat" (where the "hat" was appropriate for the game: cowboy hat for Deadlands, fedora for my P.I. Hunter, shaved head for my Exalted monk, etc). They were distinct characters, but a lot of my PCs had a strong through-line of me-ness (exceptions being a pretty ruthless Vampire and, in one of my rare D&D experiences, a Dwarf Barbarian whose first resort tended to be hitting things with an axe).

Hell, I got a lot of personal introspection accomplished from thinking about how I reacted to role-playing scenarios because of that connection. Now that I think about it, even the outlier characters could kind of work that way in a photo-negative sense.

Jay R
2013-12-19, 01:10 PM
TTo others: I see a lot of arguments made that emotional investment makes a player unable to stay "true" to a character.

I don't see any way in which that makes sense. I have an emotional investment in myself, and I stay true to my character.

So it makes no sense at all to say that I can't do what in fact I do every single day.

prufock
2013-12-19, 01:19 PM
I care about my characters because my characters care about themselves. I make self-preserving decisions because my characters want to live. I roleplay. I get into my characters' heads as much as I can, recognizing that it is a part of my head. There is no real distinction.

The only characters I don't get into are nameless NPCs when I DM and characters built purely for arena battles.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-19, 01:32 PM
I don't see any way in which that makes sense.

I think it's because people who are that attached will try to have their characters act in a way which the player thinks is beneficial/optimal for their survival and prosperity, rather than what the character would do normally.

Red Fel
2013-12-19, 03:13 PM
I think it's because people who are that attached will try to have their characters act in a way which the player thinks is beneficial/optimal for their survival and prosperity, rather than what the character would do normally.

This. The fact is, if your character has habits, addictions, principles, or any of those odd quirks that define one person from another, chances are they will adhere to them. And there is a reasonable probability that, at some point, doing so will get them into trouble.

If you, as a player, realize that if your alcoholic halfling goes into a pub in this particularly xenophobic town, he is likely to be killed to death by the locals while drunk, you, as a player, have two choices. Choice the first, you can decide that your halfling is going to avoid the demon drink, for the first time in years, in order to save his own hide. Choice the second, you can recognize that your halfling has been wandering in the wilderness for the past three weeks, dry as a bone, and he's starting to get the shakes. He needs his fix. So you go to the bar and roll the dice.

That's a mild example, of course. You could always make the argument that, even in the throws of a craving, your character could resist the siren song of a soothing sip for the sake of his skin. But what about if your character feels a compulsion to protect the downtrodden? Or is a kleptomaniac? Or any other number of entertaining character traits that a good DM can (and will) use against you? At what point are you essentially ignoring a defining part of your character for the sole purpose of preserving it?

And that's the point. If you are true to your character, you will seriously consider going into what you, the player, know to be danger if it's what your character would do. In the above example, you might or might not go to the bar, but you would certainly accept the penalty either way. (Maybe take a penalty to rolls while your character wrestles with his cravings.) If, on the other hand, you act solely to preserve your character - what I think many of the posters in this thread have been discouraging - you simply ignore that flaw.

And shame on you. Getting halflings drunk.

Jay R
2013-12-20, 11:40 AM
I think it's because people who are that attached will try to have their characters act in a way which the player thinks is beneficial/optimal for their survival and prosperity, rather than what the character would do normally.

The biggest problem with this argument is that it is simply untrue, at least in my experience. The most inconsistent players, the ones who have Good alignments but steal from, or betray, the party, tend to be playing a bag of stats and abilities.

By contrast, the players who role-play honor, courage, and honesty tend to have strong emotional connections, and can tell you who their characters are, where they came from, and why they believe the way they do.

I agree that there are people who want to "win" too much. But I haven't seen those people having stronger emotional connections to their characters than the role-players.

Krunch
2013-12-20, 12:08 PM
The last time I was emotionally invested in a character was when I was 12 years old and made a 2e Elf Ranger. I was so excited to play D&D that I spent a long time making this guy (whose name eludes me), coming up with several large paragraphs worth of description and backstory. In all I think it took me close to three hours.

When it came time to play, he died in the second room to a trap.

I guess that kind of scarred me. I'm never too emotionally attached to my characters now. Generally when they die, I don't insist that the party rez them or that the DM finds a way to bring them back. When playing 3.5 I only let PCs raise me; if they're willing to spend the XP or quest for a power item to bring the character back, I may as well keep playing the character.

Red Fel
2013-12-20, 12:50 PM
The biggest problem with this argument is that it is simply untrue, at least in my experience. The most inconsistent players, the ones who have Good alignments but steal from, or betray, the party, tend to be playing a bag of stats and abilities.

By contrast, the players who role-play honor, courage, and honesty tend to have strong emotional connections, and can tell you who their characters are, where they came from, and why they believe the way they do.

I agree that there are people who want to "win" too much. But I haven't seen those people having stronger emotional connections to their characters than the role-players.

And that's why I think the word "connection" is too ambiguous to be used in this manner. I happen to agree that a connection to the character is a good thing. As other people have mentioned, however, it's when that "connection" becomes "overprotection" that it becomes problematic.

But I quite agree with you. In a vacuum, a "connection" to the character isn't a bad thing at all. (On the other hand, in a vacuum, you'd be more worried about breathing or explosive decompression than about connection to a character.)

Slipperychicken
2013-12-20, 01:50 PM
I agree that there are people who want to "win" too much. But I haven't seen those people having stronger emotional connections to their characters than the role-players.

I'm not talking about people trying to win D&D, I mean people fearing their characters' deaths (because they love the character so much) and trying harder than normal to keep them alive, sometimes at the expense of said character's integrity or personality.

Jay R
2013-12-20, 07:27 PM
I'm not talking about people trying to win D&D, I mean people fearing their characters' deaths (because they love the character so much) and trying harder than normal to keep them alive, sometimes at the expense of said character's integrity or personality.

Then why are you talking about an emotional connection, when what you mean is a particular unhealthy approach to gaming.

Deep roleplayers who would sacrifice their character anytime it's the right thing to do have an "emotional connection to their characters".

[And if the player is "trying harder than normal to keep them alive, sometimes at the expense of said character's integrity or personality," then the problem isn't that the player is sacrificing the integrity of the character; the problem is that the character's personality is one of complete selfishness. The personality is what the player actually has the character do, not what you thought he was going to do.]

The Fury
2013-12-21, 04:31 AM
Generally I agree with Jay R here. For my own part I've never been able to have much emotional connection with a character that doesn't display some humanizing qualities. If not noble qualities like what Jay R mentioned, at least something that makes them seem clever or interesting That is to say, I need my character to take risks and get into trouble before I'll become emotionally invested in them and they need to keep doing so or I'll eventually become bored with them.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-21, 06:03 AM
Jay R, it's only unhealthy if it spills outside the rules of the game and turns into whining, cheating or agression. Trying to keep your playing piece on the table within confines of the game is perfectly normal.

It's also a matter of priority. RPGs ain't high art. You don't need to be authoring a novel character to contribute positively to a game. On the other hand, if you are doing that, maybe keeping that character in the game was not your goal. I know I've made a lot of characters for the sole purpose of them dying.

Like you said, it's not absence or presence of connection that defines it. It's what those emotions make a person do.

tensai_oni
2013-12-21, 09:21 AM
In many games I've roleplayed, I certainly came across people who were TOO attached to their characters. I am not talking the "doesn't want them to die" sense - nothing wrong with that, and besides I don't play DnD-like games where you can die from a single bad dice roll.

I am talking about an attitude of trying to escape consequences of anything bad that happens to your character, up to including people who have a bad opinion of the character in question. This was often accompanied by the player thinking that their character is so wonderful in terms of personality or skill, a quality which they actually lacked and the rest of the world disagreed on them with it. Which the player interpreted as the world being mean jerks to them.

So just saying, this is a thing that happens. But on the other hand.

Without connection, I don't get how can you even create something that is a character in the first place. You need to care for their story, care what happens to them, think how they'd react to a situation at hand - which means more CARING about their personality. But note that caring is not the same thing as being protective of. I played with many people who cared about their characters A LOT, and they knew the character would eventually die, or even planned their deaths OOCly. I am one of those people, even. I care about every single character I create as a player. I killed some of them regardless.

Last point I want to say is, putting yourself in the character so much that it becomes a self-insert is not what I consider caring for a character or even roleplaying. It's just boring self-insert laziness.

EDIT: One more thing I want to add after all.

Too many times I saw people who use the "stop being so attached to your character!" argument to counter other players who protest when their characters suffer harsh, very often unfair or arbitrary treatment. "You don't like that your character had all their stuff stolen/was raped/arbitrarily killed? Tough nuts, don't like the heat get out of the kitchen!" and stuff like that.

Needless to say, this stance makes you look like a total jerk. Or I wish I could say it's needless, but it keeps happening so people need it told over and over after all.

Airk
2013-12-21, 09:46 AM
Though I basically agree that maturity is much about understanding appropriate protocol for a given social circumstance this example you bring up is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Your sense of humor does not indicate your maturity, nor does censoring it (unless it's maybe kids or a very touchy nerve, like joking about alcoholism to someone who lost someone to a drunk driver). Making silly jokes or doing things to amuse yourself is not immature, I suspect that this erroneous belief stems from the fact that many adults are stressed and therefore not funny, and kids see the "not funny" part and think that being mature is about always being serious. It's not. Being mature is about taking responsibility for your actions and your life, it's about being considerate of other people. And it is not, absolutely not about aversion to being funny, or silly or stupid. Using a silly straw or wearing a silly hat or making puns do not make you immature. Part of being mature is knowing this so it always annoys me when people accuse others of being immature for the wrong reasons, not only is it wrong but it IS immature.



How about you read what I wrote?

Making jokes that obviously irritate people around the table is immature. It doesn't matter what KIND of jokes they are, but it's your responsibility to not annoy your gaming companions with your humor, regardless of whether it's your fart jokes or your political jokes or whatever. I'm not grading "maturity" on some "fart jokes at one end, no sense of humor at the other" scale like you and Mr. "Taking things seriously ruins the fun" Frozen_Feet seem to think, and frankly, I don't know where you're getting that from.

Repeating myself, because people aren't listening:
Maturity is determining what is appropriate for your environment and acting that way. If your environment is a bunch of kids who crack up and have a good time with fart jokes, fine. If your environment is a bunch old fashioned elderly folks, then yes, censoring your sense of humor is mature. Get over it. You can't just act however you want and pretend that "hey, it was joke, that's how my sense of humor works, don't ask me to CENSOR MYSELF MAN!!!" is enough to excuse you when it's inappropriate. Because that's not mature either.

AMFV
2013-12-21, 10:19 AM
How about you read what I wrote?

Making jokes that obviously irritate people around the table is immature. It doesn't matter what KIND of jokes they are, but it's your responsibility to not annoy your gaming companions with your humor, regardless of whether it's your fart jokes or your political jokes or whatever. I'm not grading "maturity" on some "fart jokes at one end, no sense of humor at the other" scale like you and Mr. "Taking things seriously ruins the fun" Frozen_Feet seem to think, and frankly, I don't know where you're getting that from.

Why wouldn't it be their responsibility to learn to take a joke? This is one of the things that bothers me most about the "it's offensive complaint", because the onus is on the person said the perceived offensive comment to self-adjust. Why should that be the case.

What if more people are not irritated, should one then strive to be less irritated as well, or is there a boundary in this sort of thing, if you're playing with white supremacists and they make jokes about the holocaust, are you still right to be offended? Are they misreading their environment. The point is that it is not a simple matter, and conflating "maturity" an effervescent concept at the best of times, with something that is simplistic is going to give you all kinds of wonky readings regarding maturity.

Maturity of a player in a game, has very little in my experience to do with real life maturity. Many of the most mature folks I have met, tend to behave somewhat with less decorum under certain relaxed settings, and that's fine, but to conflate a general assumption about a person's behavior to their total level of maturity is probably, a mislead assumption.



Repeating myself, because people aren't listening:
Maturity is determining what is appropriate for your environment and acting that way. If your environment is a bunch of kids who crack up and have a good time with fart jokes, fine. If your environment is a bunch old fashioned elderly folks, then yes, censoring your sense of humor is mature. Get over it. You can't just act however you want and pretend that "hey, it was joke, that's how my sense of humor works, don't ask me to CENSOR MYSELF MAN!!!" is enough to excuse you when it's inappropriate. Because that's not mature either.

Why is censoring my sense of humor mature around old people, isn't assuming old people don't like potty humor (as hint, many of them do), a little bit judgmental, which I would say is probably a sign of immaturity. I can completely act contrary to social norms as a joke and expect you to get over it. If you can't deal with that, then maybe its you, who is being immature in this particular debate.



To the OP:

Emotional involvement is neither bad nor is it good necessarily. I tend to have a high level of emotional involvement in my characters. Because I typically spend quite a bit of time on them, if I spend eight plus hours in a week working on something personal, I'm probably going to have at least some level of emotional connection. I've never found that it has hindered my roleplay, and I've never found that it makes me more likely to risk my characters less because I am afraid of them perishing.

In fact, I've found the opposite to be true, because I have an emotional investment in my characters... I have an investment in their emotional and personal thinking, which means that I tend to try to play them as they would act, so a character that is reckless, will do reckless things. A character who is calculating will try their damndest to be so, simply because that is how the emotional involvement leads me to portray them, because to me they become almost like friends, and so you can understand how they would want to act.

In terms of the danger, well they're adventurers, many of whom would rather die than go back to a regular life.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-21, 11:20 AM
Airk: again forgetting the contrast point.

It's not "someone who makes stupid joke vs. someone who takes things seriously".

It's "someone who makes stupid jokes but doesn't get upset when he's told to stop vs. someone who throws a fit when things aren't taken seriously". EDIT: and of course the latter is "immature". That was my original point. A "mature" person can be serious when needed, but can also take a joke when needed, even when it doesn't appeal to him in particular. In context of a make-believe game, goofing around is much less of a sin than being grumpy.

Again: maturity is a grab-bag of traits. You sum it up in one sentence and then think it's one, single thing, but the ability to adjust behaviour to environments requires experience with said environments. No matter how mature you think you are, you won't automagically adjust to a foreign etiquette.

What matters is the ability to deal with specific environment: mainly, playing with the rules and dealing with loss in context of a game. Children who are otherwise damn brats can manage that. More isn't usually required for a game.