The PC: Avatar or Individual?

[WhiteShark]

The prevailing trend for a long time now has been to play the player character, as far as can be managed, as a totally separate person from the player. Thus arise the concepts of 'metagame knowledge', 'that's what my character would do', compulsory mental disadvantages, and so on; thus we have situations where a player deliberately directs his character to act contrary to both common sense and his own self interest. Playing the PC in unwavering accord with his individual personality is considered to be the essence of roleplaying.

However, I have observed for a few years now that in some groups, especially OSR circles, the player character is treated as an avatar of the player. When confronted with a dilemma the question is not, "What would John the Straight White Male Fighter do?" but rather, "What would Joe the Straight White Male Player do if he were in John's shoes?" Here metagame knowledge is not considered a problem and a source of temptation, its very use a sin against roleplaying, but rather a valuable and hard-won asset, the mark of a veteran player. Here the PC never acts, except in cases of magical compulsion, in any way but that which the player himself deems the wisest. Roleplaying is defined as interacting with and exploring the fiction through the avatar and entirely unrelated to acting.

So, roleplayers of the HQ, which one is correct and true roleplaying?

Addendum:
NPCs and monsters are, of course, different. It were a boring world indeed if every sapient creature aside from the party had the GM's personality. I see no evidence that anyone advocates or has ever advocated that the GM play the characters under his control as avatars.

[Ratcatcher]

I went with individual but I'd like to elaborate. The idea you play as a specific individual and not as yourself in pnp serves both to provide additional limitations (eg a Paladin being forbidden from doing things you'd be perfectly fine with irl, like accepting compensation for a task performed) and to provide variety in subsequent games. Limitations are good. They force you to be clever, in order to obtain what you as player want.

If you play as yourself and inject too much of what you are in every character, they will inevitably all feel the same. This is the problem with variety I mentioned above. It's also something I know very well since it's a sin I commit often when I attend games as a player and not as a Game Master. As much as I try and avoid injecting metaknoweledge, I always end up playing some sort of diplomatic martial or rogue, try and talk first because it's usually meta, punch or 'xplode stuff later. My old time buddies know this too well.

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean with the monsters bit tho. When I GM, I strive to make my encounters believable and to make the foes I select feel 'natural'. Eg not everyone fights to death ofc but when does a specific enemy escape, precisely? Hobgoblins may rout as a disciplined unit, bandits may have individual morale or Will saves to decide if they stay and fight when a leader or champion dies, some foes can be enboldened by their peers dying. I feel proper GMing should convey that. Ofc without going overboard as it wastes everyone's time but if I flatten the barbarian with a crit, I'll gladly give you a one liner of the Ogre gloating over his unconscious body.
I'd say that's a mini-individual of sort.

[WhiteShark]

The idea you play as a specific individual and not as yourself in pnp serves both to provide additional limitations (eg a Paladin being forbidden from doing things you'd be perfectly fine with irl, like accepting compensation for a task performed) and to provide variety in subsequent games. Limitations are good. They force you to be clever, in order to obtain what you as player want.

The paladin example isn't quite the same. The paladin's code does place a limitation on the PC that forces him to be played differently, this much is true. However, it's a limitation akin to the PC's hands being bound or his being stuck at the bottom of a spiked pit: it doesn't change his personality, just his available actions. It fits just fine into the avatar theory: "What would Joe do if he were in this situation but were not allowed to take actions X, Y, and Z because of an oath?"

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean with the monsters bit tho. When I GM, I strive to make my encounters believable and to make the foes I select feel 'natural'. Eg not everyone fights to death ofc but when does a specific enemy escape, precisely? Hobgoblins may rout as a disciplined unit, bandits may have individual morale or Will saves to decide if they stay and fight when a leader or champion dies, some foes can be enboldened by their peers dying. I feel proper GMing should convey that. Ofc without going overboard as it wastes everyone's time but if I flatten the barbarian with a crit, I'll gladly give you a one liner of the Ogre gloating over his unconscious body.
I'd say that's a mini-avatar of sort.

I'm confused because it sounds like you're describing individuals rather than avatars. The monsters escape when it makes sense for those sorts of monsters to escape, or when the rules say they should, making them individuals. If they were avatars, they would escape when the GM himself thought it were best for them to escape. In most cases that would probably mean fleeing from the party the moment they became aware of them.

With the ogre example, it could go either way. If the GM had the ogre gloat because the GM thought it was funny, that would indeed be an example of avatar play. If, on the other hand, the GM had the ogre gloat because he thought that's what an ogre would do, then it's an example of the ogre being played as an individual.

[Ratcatcher]

The paladin example isn't quite the same. The paladin's code does place a limitation on the PC that forces him to be played differently, this much is true.

I've only used the Paladin as it is fairly understandable by everyone. I could answer that, ultimately, the choice to follow the code or not is the player's. Maybe this particular player wants to roleplay a fallen paladin and that's how the individual ties back to the reasoning. Ofc I could have said the same about the rogue that never murders or only steals from the rich, or the ******* LE character always on the lookout for some good trolling. Those are all different individuals and one should strive to play them as such imho.

I'm confused because it sounds like you're describing individuals rather than avatars.

You're confused because I'm shtoopid. I wrote literally the wrong word lmao. I edited my post 45 secs later but you caught me!

[WhiteShark]

Those are all different individuals and one should strive to play them as such imho.

To be honest, I can see both sides of the argument. Allow me to link the pdf that got me thinking about this topic again recently. The whole thing is an enjoyable read, but the relevant part is titled Dungeon Master Foo and the Thespian. I think it makes a compelling case for avatar theory, at least for that style of play.

[Vlajdimir Ermenović]

It's a game piece, like the top hat in monopoly. The ratio of player creation to immutable context really comes down to what approach the dev is better at. Most of the arr pidgeys I like take the avatar route, but you can take the example of No Truce With the Furries. Finding out who Harry is little by little was, in my opinion, its biggest saving grace. Still, though, if No Truce is the best example I can come up with, it shows that the ''individual'' route is easy to mess up, so I don't blame most devs for going the ''avatar'' route.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's a gestalt of both

[Acrux]

I haven't read the paper you linked yet, but I think it's definitely on a continuum. I've played in groups where the ideal is the PC is a separate individual, but in reality takes on aspects of the player. I remember a paladin I played for years who I described as "me except brave, charming, and handsome". Some people are really bad at playing characters that aren't them. But at the same time, I don't want my game time to be amateur theater hour.

The game system can influence this as well, or maybe it's the culture around it. D&D5 definitely seems to encourage playing avatars.

[WhiteShark]

<Ammazzaratti> I could point out numerous flaws... A backstory shouldn't be written at the table. Doesn't need to be long, 2 lines are enough. You can have multiple. you rly don't need character voices, those are cringe most of times... But saying "I'll just play like I'll do" more or less reduces each pc to an extension of the player's will, while I see it as a particular tool you must learn to use
...
<WhiteShark> Ammazzaratti, how do you feel about PCs acting directly against their own, and by extension, their party's best interests in the name of roleplaying?
<Ammazzaratti> perfectly fine. I often write infighting in my oneshots because they are !Fun
<Ammazzaratti> Ofc campaign play is different
<Ammazzaratti> The party should be put together by the players, talking among themselves about what kind of game they want.
<Norfleet> WhiteShark: It depends on if the players are up for this or not.
<Ammazzaratti> Some groups explicitly like having the possibility of someone being a traitor or corrupt, for example

One thing I keep thinking is that many of the various systems and playstyles collectively known as 'RPGs' are only superficially related. For example, I have long considered those systems in which the players have direct control over the fiction via some form of metacurrency to be 'storygames' rather than RPGs because they are a drastic departure from the typical and original mode of play as embodied in early D&D. In the storygame paradigm, the term 'player' is a misnomer: the participants are more like a chief author (the GM), who dictates the majority of the 'narrative', and a collection of sub-authors (the players), who contribute to or alter said narrative in prescribed ways. This stands in stark contrast to classic D&D, and conventional RPGs in general, in which there is no 'narrative', just setting and situations, and the players act on the world through the vehicle of their characters rather than directly as co-creators.

That may seem a bit of a tangent, but my point is that not all those systems known as RPGs are really the same thing. My contention, then, is this: whether a PC is considered an avatar or an individual represents a similarly fundamental rift between 'RPGs'.

From what I read of classical D&D, it was considered a game to be won. Sure, there was an effort to make the world seem real and independent from the PCs, but nevertheless, the PCs were primarily tools by which the players overcame challenges and conquered the dungeon. As mentioned in the OP, metagame knowledge was valued and foolhardy play was frowned upon. Here the term 'player' makes the most sense.

Under the 'individual' theory of PCs, players are more like observers or psychologists. Technically the player still dictates the PC's actions, but it is done with an eye toward what the player thinks the PC would do given his capabilities, knowledge, and personality. This almost inevitably requires a PC to take actions that are suboptimal from a purely mechanical perspective. It is clear, then, that 'individual' theory is not compatible with the view of RPG as a game. The player may still want to 'win', but he allows fidelity to his PC's personality to take precedence. This makes the highest goal accurate simulation, and thus the activity becomes simulation rather than game.

Interestingly, though it is reviled by people like @rusty_shackleford, this breakdown neatly aligns with GNS theory. That was not intentional, but I've long thought that GNS is a useful tool for categorization even if its author drew boneheaded conclusions from it. Of course, the lines are not always so clearly drawn. Just as an author cannot actually create characters independent from his own mind, true individuality for PCs is impossible. Likewise I suspect, though I was not there, that there were some who gave consideration to their PCs' personalities even in the allegedly more avatarist days of yore.

Unfortunately, categorizing systems according to this division between avatarism and individualism is difficult. While some systems openly encourage or even mandate individualist PCs, I don't know of any system that clearly prescribes avatarism. Moreover, it is perfectly possible to play many systems either way, and while this transforms the whole nature of the activity, such is not apparent in the rules. I call this difficulty unfortunate because while, to my mind, avatarism vs individualism is just as great a difference as storygames vs RPGs, it is not a difference apparent to most people, either because the system never addresses it or because they take individualist PCs for granted.

TL;DR
avatar PCs -> RPG as game
individual PCs -> RPG as simulation

[WhiteShark]

I haven't read the paper you linked yet, but I think it's definitely on a continuum. I've played in groups where the ideal is the PC is a separate individual, but in reality takes on aspects of the player. I remember a paladin I played for years who I described as "me except brave, charming, and handsome". Some people are really bad at playing characters that aren't them. But at the same time, I don't want my game time to be amateur theater hour.

Ultimately I suspect that's how all playing of individualist PCs works: "Me but A, B, C, D, E..." with the number of alterations you can keep consistent determining the degree to which the PC seems like an individual. You can predict what people will do in real life without placing yourself in their shoes by means of prior experience and pattern recognition, but when it comes to a fictional character, it ultimately comes back to your own mind.

The game system can influence this as well, or maybe it's the culture around it. D&D5 definitely seems to encourage playing avatars.

That's a good point about 5e. I completely overlooked it in my analysis. I considered avatarism only from the perspective of playing a game in pursuit of victory, but I think 5e players do it for a different reason: self-insertion power fantasy.

EDIT: @Acrux I don't know if you play 5e, but if you do, know that the latter statement wasn't directed at you. It's just a general observation.

[Atlantico]

I have the most fun when I play a character. He is not me, I try to guide the character like I am his subconscious — or at least how I imagine it.

I don't play RPGs to play myself. Of course some of myself well always be reflected in the character, but that's my own limitation as a human being. I can try to empathize and understand the character I am playing, but I will always do so from my personal experience, prejudice and knowledge.

[Acrux]

That's a good point about 5e. I completely overlooked it in my analysis. I considered avatarism only from the perspective of playing a game in pursuit of victory, but I think 5e players do it for a different reason: self-insertion power fantasy.

EDIT: @Acrux I don't know if you play 5e, but if you do, know that the latter statement wasn't directed at you. It's just a general observation.

Ha, no I'm not a 5E player, and no offense would have been taken anyway. (I'm pretty eclectic in the systems I play, although in my dotage I'm beginning to settle on DMing E6 Pathfinder style games.)

I think the "power fantasy" vs "pursuit of victory" distinction isn't that far apart anyway, as from what I understand a lot of 5E gaming is telling the story at any cost, and so completing the story becomes the victory condition.

[WhiteShark]

I think the "power fantasy" vs "pursuit of victory" distinction isn't that far apart anyway, as from what I understand a lot of 5E gaming is telling the story at any cost, and so completing the story becomes the victory condition.

The distinction I see is caused by two factors: the high survivability of PCs and the theme park ride structure of campaigns. You could call completing such a campaign victory in a sense, but it's not the same feeling. Conquest of a genuinely lethal dungeon and surviving to high levels through a combination of skill and luck gives the player the sense of having triumphed over the game. The self-insert power fantasy, on the other hand, is more about spectacle and daydreaming about how cool your PC is.

[KnightoftheWind]

I think any game that emphasizes character creation in the beginning can be considered de-facto "Avatar" games. In most cases your character is completely silent, meaning it's up to you to fill in the blanks.

[rusty_shackleford]

using meta knowledge is cheating btw

[Ratcatcher]

In most cases your character is completely silent,

...if you bothered reading any post itt, you'd quickly realize we are discussing pnp (hint: you are, in fact, in the tabletop section of the site). Either that or your IQ is so low you went through it all without figuring it. I frankly don't know which hypothesis is the less unflattering so I will simply let you decide.

Unless you're ready to argue the feasibility of pen and paper RPG characters being played completely silently.

[KnightoftheWind]

Sorry I figured we were discussing RPG video games.

[WhiteShark]

using meta knowledge is cheating btw

Not every sees it that way, and let's be honest, it's not like the player can forget what he knows. Imagine being forced to pretend you don't know troll regeneration is stopped by fire every single campaign. Insane. If the GM wants a creature to be new and mysterious, he should stat it himself so that foreknowledge of its attributes is impossible.

[rusty_shackleford]

using meta knowledge is cheating btw

Not every sees it that way, and let's be honest, it's not like the player can forget what he knows. Imagine being forced to pretend you don't know troll regeneration is stopped by fire every single campaign. Insane. If the GM wants a creature to be new and mysterious, he should stat it himself so that foreknowledge of its attributes is impossible.

Then change what stops troll healing each campaign.

[WhiteShark]

using meta knowledge is cheating btw

Not every sees it that way, and let's be honest, it's not like the player can forget what he knows. Imagine being forced to pretend you don't know troll regeneration is stopped by fire every single campaign. Insane. If the GM wants a creature to be new and mysterious, he should stat it himself so that foreknowledge of its attributes is impossible.

Then change what stops troll healing each campaign.

That's certainly an option, though I think it's the laziest and most adversarial one, feeling more like a cheap "gotcha!" than anything else.

[rusty_shackleford]

Not every sees it that way, and let's be honest, it's not like the player can forget what he knows. Imagine being forced to pretend you don't know troll regeneration is stopped by fire every single campaign. Insane. If the GM wants a creature to be new and mysterious, he should stat it himself so that foreknowledge of its attributes is impossible.

Then change what stops troll healing each campaign.

That's certainly an option, though I think it's the laziest and most adversarial one, feeling more like a cheap "gotcha!" than anything else.

Feels more like you're afraid your meta knowledge may become less useful

[Ratcatcher]

Then change what stops troll healing each campaign.

No, he's right. That's cheap and lazy. Have a random NPC purposedly state "btw, remember trolls need acid or fire to be harmed or killed" before the encounter, metaknoweledge solved.

As a GM you have literally endless options to endanger your players, provide challenges and give them actually interesting enemies to fight. Write your own custom monster, make it vulnerable only when using alloyed copper, write a poem about it. The sky is the limit.

[rusty_shackleford]

No, he's right. That's cheap and lazy. Have a random NPC purposedly state "btw, remember trolls need acid or fire to be harmed or killed" before the encounter, metaknoweledge solved.

Or you could have a table of possible things that cause a troll to stop regenerating and PCs might have to perform research.
The horror, I know.

[Ratcatcher]

Lmao. Do you want me to list the amount of topics I had my player research to kill mosters or the substances they got from them and how they intertwine with the trifecta of Lovecraftian entities deciding the fate of the world my group plays in?

Do you want to go that way Rusty?

I'm not saying your solution wouldn't work. I'm saying it would be cringe, your player would make the face from the "son, I'm disappoint" meme and that there are better and more elegant solutions to the same exact conundrum. Yes, they still require your players to think.

[rusty_shackleford]

Lmao. Do you want me to list the amount of topics I had my player research to kill mosters or the substances they got from them and how they intertwine with the trifecta of Lovecraftian entities deciding the fate of the world my group plays in?

Do you want to go that way Rusty?

I'm not saying your solution wouldn't work. I'm saying it would be cringe, your player would make the face from the "son, I'm disappoint" meme and that there are better and more elegant solutions to the same exact conundrum. Yes, they still require your players to think.

The more elegant solution is "just tell the player"?

[Acrux]

using meta knowledge is cheating btw

Not every sees it that way, and let's be honest, it's not like the player can forget what he knows. Imagine being forced to pretend you don't know troll regeneration is stopped by fire every single campaign. Insane. If the GM wants a creature to be new and mysterious, he should stat it himself so that foreknowledge of its attributes is impossible.

Then change what stops troll healing each campaign.

Unironically yes.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's how roguelikes handle player meta-information from spoiling games, I don't see why it can't be equally applied to pnp. Unless you think meta-information is good.

[Ratcatcher]

Yes. Because a troll is banal **** boring. I normally don't like derailing threads but I can post an example of what I mean, if you're genuinely interested. The text was never proofread as I only RPed this directly and never gave it to my players but it should be understandable enough. It's precisely a scene telling them WHAT is needed to kill a particular monster.

It's also comprised mostly of answers to questions I was expecting or specific statements that could be spoken in any order, so you'll have to bear with it to understand the gist.

[rusty_shackleford]

Because a troll is banal **** boring.

This is the DM's fault, not the troll's fault.

[Ratcatcher]

Not you Rusty, your skills as a troll aren't banal.