We Wrestle With Identity All The Time
During a game a little while ago, I remarked that story gamers wrestle with concepts of identity all the time. More than lots of other people and even more than other gamers. It was an off-the-cuff observation, but the more I think about it, the more I think it’s absolutely true.
I’m particularly talking about collaborative GMless games, which is what we play the most. We are constantly inventing new characters, and every time you do that you have to establish a whole host of details to make that person someone clear and distinct, who we can all visualize. Which means we have to choose who we want this person to be, from all the possible kinds of people in the world: are they straight, gay, bi, male, female, non-binary, young, old, black, white, brown, etc etc etc etc.
And none of those are sensitive issues, right? I have seen, time and again, the distinct pause that hits the table as we start to envision a character (“yeah, the investigation is led by the head of the department, who is…”) and then have to decide all the details. Do I want the abusive studio chief to be a woman? What themes does that unlock? If we make them a wealthy straight white man is that just too damn obvious? Or does that fit perfectly for the situation we’re exploring?
It’s a careful, thoughtful process, because we are all busy thinking about the implications of our choices. What does it say about the story? And what does it say about me, the player at the table, for making that choice? Because the fiction we make ultimately holds a mirror up to us, the creators. Our biases are reflected in what we make, and we’re wrestling with that out in the open, in front of all the other players.
Other role-playing games make characters too, but generally without the same level of scrutiny. When a GM makes characters, they do it on their own, behind the curtain. They don’t have to discuss *why* they made each character that way. Same if you’re a writer filling the pages of your novel: you don’t have to discuss and debate why you chose that particular identity for each character the moment you make them. Readers may theorize, but they’re not privy to the process.
But in collaborate creative games like we play, it’s much more out in the open. We think and talk about the why of the who all the time. Is it good for our brains? I think it is.
Leave a reply
Perhaps the story game format leads to more character experimentation inherently by design?
Playing multiple characters and multiple games with different characters may lead to more experimentation.
Absolutely!
My only regret is that we didn’t record that discussion between me, you, and Ace last night. That was a really great dive into the relationship between players and the characters they make.
For me in no rpg (nor microscope or any of your games I had the luck to try with others), had this issue…it is always was like…. “it is what it is”.
Now that you mention it, Microscope is a game where this would come up the least, since it is so strict about individual contribution.
[…] We wrestle with identity all the time, kirjoittajana Ben Robbins, huomaa että pelinjohtamattomissa tarinapeleissä luodaan jatkuvasti hahmoja ja joudutaan miettimään näiden sukupuolta, ihonväriä, luonnetta. Pelit paljastavat pelaajistaan paljon tätä kautta. https://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/3743/we-wrestle-with-identity-all-the-time/ […]
Hmm, even in collaborative GMless games I’ve played, I don’t think I’ve ever had an actual open discussion about why the magistrate is a woman, or whatever. Those things are just decisions made by whoever has the job of creating the magistrate at the time, not unlike the job of the GM in a traditional game. Playing GMless distributes those choices, but hasn’t, for me, changed the discussion about the choices. I feel like I’ve mused aloud, as a GM, “Hmm, do you want the bandit leader to be a woman?” or “Hmm, I think the king might be gay,” to about the same extent that I’m making those choices in a GMless game, too.
Are there particular GMless games you’re thinking of where this discussion is foregrounded as part of the ruleset? Or is this a sort of cultural thing that you’ve experienced with the particular players you’ve played with? Or something you personally bring to the table? Or some combination?
The less collaborative the game (or play style) obviously the less it will come up. But I think it’s more interesting that you are being transparent about those choices as a GM. I don’t think most GMs do that.