From: kab@strl.labs.tek.com (Kent Black)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: A rather different view Re: Character Detail
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:12:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: crl.4907
Organization: STRL, Tektronix, Inc.

Oh, I've followed this thread and tried to refrain... what follows is
mostly tangential to the notion of amount of detail and how it is
achieved, though related: I postulate that character factoids (stats,
history) are vastly over-rated for role-playing.  I have few, and
mild, opinions on required character detail or how it should be
generated.  I think the discussion covertly accepts a debatable
assumption: i.e., character facts (stats, ability, history) are most
nearly the unmodified, direct determiners of character behavior.

***
N.B., Without prejudice, I am only addressing FRP's that seek to
establish a certain "realistic" personality development before and
during playing sessions.  Broad classes of games fall outside this
essay, so please do not waste bandwidth to reply "but that's not what
I want".  I'm not even sure I want what I'll describe, and I've never
tried it.
***

How many people have anything close to an accurate self-image and
self-assessment of abilities, talents, etc?  How many people fail to
realize they cannot sing a note, or that they are either better or
worse looking than they think themselves.  I am certain that I have a
wonderful personality, despite the many people who have told me I'm
rather cold, taciturn and aloof!  These are fairly gross,
culturally-based objective (to coin an oxymoron;-) measures: how much
worse the intangibles of memory, charm -- or even body odor!  We are
only adequate at self-assessment.

A while back, Dave Lewis condensed the arguments into simple premises,
of which I will only touch the first:
    1) Conception is key...
Yes.  My self-image, my concept of myself is key to much of my
behavior.  However, concept frequently fails to correlate well with
reality.  I thought for years I was ugly, and behaved accordingly. In
fact, I'm not extraordinary looking in either direction,
well-proportioned with no major physical deformities, but my belief
kept me from dating, dancing, etc.  I thought I was extremely bright,
and became a real smart ass: in fact, I am quite bright, but I've met
many, many people who were either much brighter or more intellectually
determined, or both.  My self-image tends to flatten highs and lows,
to make me deprecate my talents and mitigate my faults, but other
people employ other strategies.

Socratic wisdom is to "know thyself".  I've rarely met a person who
has much Socratic wisdom, but the average player knows his/her
character well enough to reduce Socrates to an unintelligent life
form.  Or does s/he?  Without burlesque, how many players (in
relatively "realistic" genres) will play the character conception with
merely "proper" regard to stats, abilities, etc? 
 
* OH, I know! I Know!! Every "real roleplayer" does!!!  Fine, bear
with me, ye who have achieved enlightenment. ;-)

I would almost rather write a character conception and have my Referee
make up the character -- not to match my concept, but only to *allow*
my concept as a reasonable possibility.  And never tell me the
numbers.  I could give a partial, plausible history and answer a
survey of self concepts: am I (read, "do I believe myself to be")
physically powerful, average or frail; am I physically graceful or
clumsy; am I a social butterfly or a wall flower; am I bright or dull;
etc.  The referee takes that information and produces a first draft
that would reasonably allow me to function, although I might be
incorrect about my actual abilities.  Next, the Referee would work
with me to fill in my career choices: I lived on a farm, but my father
always said I wasn't very good with the animals (was my father telling
the truth?); my mother felt I was a good student, and I got good
grades (at Podunk grammar school, but maybe the headmistress was a
brilliant teacher).... What skills would I concentrate on?  Well,
let's try reading: you read quite well.  O.k., I'll try wrestling:
so-so, you lose more than you win (was my normal opponent an Olympian?
An uncoordinated weakling?  Someone I secretly romanticized?).  O.k.,
I'll try running: you're an average sprinter, but quite good at middle
distance.  And so on: I get a set number of "slots" for "childhood" in
which the Referee requires certain activities and I can choose the
others (the Referee might disallow certain things, etc), and all the
while the Referee is allowing some randomness into the process.  Maybe
I succeed beyond my stats, or fail despite my stats for environmental
or other reasons.  Maybe I never hit my real talent (If only I'd tried
javelin!) or maybe I find one thing I'm good at and do it over and
over developing extraordinary talent, or maybe I find many things I'm
good at but do not pursue any of them to full development, or maybe I
decide early I want a particular career and pursue certain areas
regardless of my progression.  Now I have my history, and the Referee
has some concrete numbers (for game purposes) that I can generally
intuit, and we both have a good idea of my character.  Except that the
Referee has to devote 400 hours to character creation and we never
actually play anything... ;-(

Now, during game time, I (that is a personal "I", not intended to
include those who are my betters) would be much more likely to play
according to history and concept.  Can I lift that rock?  Yes, I'm a
big strappin' farm kid, and it's no bigger than a yearling colt!
Should I try to learn some magic?  Gee, I didn't do too well in
school, I think it would be a waste of time and money.  In the usual
course of play, with my stat sheet at hand, I, fortunately for most of
my life, have far too good of a memory: I cannot "forget" my "83%
chance to learn level 1 magic" or "35% chance to lift colt-sized
rocks" -- even if my character has never done any related activity, I
know those figures and it does influence my play.  

The key to my discomfiture about existing systems is that, because I
have such a clear grasp of character limits for every conceivable
action, I automatically evaluate risk assessment based on likelihood
of character success, not on character concept.  Note, I did not say
"I act" on this information (lest I revive "hacker" broadsides), but I
do know the information.  In life, I know that I act on far less
perfect information, in part because I do not have an absolute metric
for every aspect of my being.  In dangerous situations, I do not
suddenly "discover" that I have an excellent chance of performing some
novel activity: if it even occurs to me, I will not be able to judge
its risk except by comparison to what I believe to be similar
activities that I have tried in the past.  I may have many
misconceptions about small matters because of environmental conditions
that I do not correctly comprehend: e.g., I act tougher than I am
because I'm athletic and have never been challenged, and I haven't
been challenged because I am athletic and I act tough, and indeed I
believe I am tough!  I have no idea what my "TOUGH" is: I may be in
for a rude surprise in the next biker bar.

Well, I've wasted enough bandwidth.
-- kab