Who Do You Do?
      The fourth in a continuing series of articles on
                  the psychology of gaming

While talking to a SynTax reader on the phone earlier in the year
about Quest for Glory V, she happened to mention that whenever
possible she takes on the character of a mage, and it got me
thinking ...

In single-player role-playing games, and games like the Quest for
Glory series which have RPG characteristics, one of the first
things we have to do is create a character or choose one from a
collection of possible types. At their most basic these would
probably be a fighter, mage/wizard or thief. Other games add
clerics, paladins (fighters with magic abilities such as healing)
and other more obscure types like rangers, druids and barbarians
(fighters who can go berserk).

Why do we often pick one particular type, given a choice, when we
roll up our character? Sometimes the choices are practical,
sometimes more emotional; at other times ... who knows? I 
asked a few SynTax readers. Sometimes, they told me, it was a
practical choice. Fighters are stronger and if you only have a
single character, a fighter has an edge, especially in the early
stages. If it's a party RPG, and you create the leader, it seems
natural to more of you to have a leader who is a fighter rather
than, say, a mage. Fighters lead, mages follow, was the general
opinion.

Others picked a paladin whenever possible. Paladins are good
fighters but have the added benefit of being able to cast some
spells such as healing spells.

From a practical choice, I like to play a cleric. Clerics have
good defensive magic and some offensive magic, and they can fight
when necessary though they are restricted by weapon and armour
type. They have more strength and stamina etc than mages, who tend
to be low on hit points and felled by one swipe.  But generally
they are peaceful people who only fight back when they have to.
Hmm ... maybe emotion is creeping in there a bit too.

Some people look on the persona they choose as an extension of
themselves or, alternatively, as the person they would like to be,
if only occasionally. The most law-abiding of us can sometimes
feel the need to create havoc. Playing a thief can give us an
outlet to sneak about and be devious while taking on the character
of a berserker lets us give full vent to our anger and explode ...
then go on with our non-RPG lives as though nothing had happened.

We often do things in RPGs that we wouldn't do in real life. Think
of all the monsters we kill, for one thing. Okay, they're in our
way, and trying to dismember us, but wouldn't most of us run,
quick smart, in the opposite direction, not stand there beckoning
them and saying, "C'mon then, wotcha got?" I don't know about you,
but taking part in an RPG gives me a chance to let a lot of
aggression out of my system if I've had a bad day. Kicking seven
bells out of a monster can make me feel a lot better! It feels
much safer to do that to a monster than to a difficult customer,
workmate or relative.  Playing a fighter or berserker can have
advantages that a cleric or druid doesn't have.

Personally, I find it even better to create and control a party
rather than one character. That way ALL the facets of my character
can get a look in. My cleric can be maternal and my fighter can
get rid of my aggression. But, as with the facets of our
personality in real life, all the different party members work
together to make an integrated whole.

But is there even more to it than this, I wondered? Once again I
called on leading psychotherapist Adrian Blake for an explanation.
He said:

   "...If we closely identify an RPG with reality we will likely
   revert when under 'threat' to ancient survival instincts. In
   the RPG as in life a strong leader will rapidly be chosen on
   the basis, not surprisingly, of the one most likely to win.
   This does not necessarily include physical strength, but they
   will be clever, resourceful, courageous, and have a commanding
   presence.  The greater the threat, the less we are concerned
   about the niceties of their characters. Moral codes go out the
   window - if they look likely to win they can do what they want.
   Attila the Hun? Yes, if he fits the bill.

   If we see an RPG purely as a game, or as unrealistic, we may
   act differently as our 'survival' is taken less seriously. We
   can be more self-indulgent. We are likely to project out what
   secretly we would most like to express (but which in real life
   may be socially unacceptable). This may be our angry part, or a
   monster, or a devious, unscrupulous aspect. Or we may choose
   our ideal self, all that we would like to be - we will 'search
   for the hero inside'.

   With a limited range of possible leaders in an RPG our ideal
   choice may not exist. We will then go for the one that most
   closely approximates to what we're looking for, the 'next
   best'.  As in politics, it's often a compromise candidate."



                              - o -