For some, it expresses itself in a desire to play one character type repeatedly, whether the archetype is comfortably similar to the player's own nature or else is a projection of some ideal fantasy self. Monk Gamer described this phenomenon as it related to one of his long-term player, saying "Let's say you have someone that plays an Elven necromancer a lot. I mean, they play it every single time. They don't even try to play a fighter or bard. They just play that same Elven necromancer over and over. Then you go to another game like Star Wars. Guess what? They don't have Elven necromancers. Well, what is the next best thing? A Sith Lord, over and over. It's like maybe he actually believes he is an Elven necromancer, or he wants to be.”
Dr. Gary Alan Fine believed that the two methods for playing a character are the "gamer" and the "role player". The "gamer" plays himself in another body and in another location, while the "role player" plays the role of whatever the character embodies. While I agree, at least in part, with Fine's assessment and description, the terminology is no longer appropriate because members of the community now often refer to themselves as gamers and it no longer carries any negative connotations. My research and the research of John Hughes indicate that Fine's division is an extreme oversimplification of the complexities that exist between a player and their fantasy Approaching the results from a symbolic interactionist's perspective, Hughes explains the ways in which meanings are assigned to various traits and how that impacts the ways a character will develop. He suggests that characters are created using a combination of five different methods. Each method comes with different benefits and consequences, both in the game and in reality.
Played as the Player
First, as Fine mentioned, characters can be played as the player. This means that the character has the same personality as the person controlling them. There is essentially no difference between the two besides their abilities and statistics. A player using this method would roleplay a Renaissance era knight or a Star Wars Jedi in exactly the same way because in either case they are still simply playing themselves in those roles. This is very common with new gamers who have not been fully indoctrinated into the game. Since this method is the most simplistic and least engaging type of character, people within the gaming community may refer to them as a "roll player" (focused on rolling dice) rather than a role player. A role player gets emotionally involved in the adventure and does not merely seek to "win". In contrast, the roll player approaches it like a traditional game with the goal of gaining as many experience points as possible in order to level up, beat the monster, save the damsel, or find the treasure.
Played as Aesthetic Symbol
Second, characters can be played as what Hughes calls “aesthetic symbols”. A frame of reference is used as a guide for the character or for limited trait selection, often based on a fictional character or an archetype generated by the player's perceptions of the role. The player will then attempt to act as he believes the fictional character would (Hughes 1988). Sometimes the fantasy frame is tapped in unorthodox ways, like pulling one fictional character out of their element and using it as a base in another alternate environment. For example, a gamer might play a medieval rogue with Han Solo as their archetype. In some cases a roleplaying character takes on a life of his own and becomes its own entity, with a personality so robust and distinctive that he can exist independent of the player that created him. Other players may then adopt him as their archetype.
Played as an Exaggerated Symbol
In the third method the character can be portrayed as an exaggerated symbol, taking a quality that the player perceives themselves as possessing and exaggerating that quality in their character. Thunderstud Gamer, like most others interviewed, had observed this kind of personality crossover, stating " Mannerisms always leak through. My wife, for example, really is a bit rogue-y. So if the game has any kind of roguish character, that's what she plays. If people play long enough they eventually find an archetype they like and stick with it."
Compensation Symbol
The next method is using the character as a compensating symbol. This occurs when the player possesses a certain trait, but feels that either they do not have enough of it or they simply wish for more. If the player lacks a trait, then creating a character that possesses it can provide an opportunity to safely explore the differences by becoming a cognitive symbol. (Hughes 1988). Gamers themselves describe the fantasy environment as a safe place, free of judgment, which allows one to explore facets that might be detrimental elsewhere
Cognitive Symbol
The fifth type of character is a cognitive symbol, which is essentially a role of deliberate opposition to one's self. It is very valuable when exploring new personality traits or testing beliefs in a relatively safe environment, but it requires the most distance from the player's personal experience and thus can be very challenging to maintain. When roleplaying a new character, the player must rely on some kind of reference point, and if they are playing any character other than themselves they must somehow acquire these points of reference. In the real world, we have a lifetime of experiences to draw upon but in the fantasy world the player does not have that advantage. Rainbow Brite Gamer recalled one instance when a player lacked the necessary reference points to convincingly roleplay a new character. "There was a guy in my group, a very experienced gamer, who tried to shake things up by playing a Holy Paladin. He just couldn't stay in character and gave up after the first game. When I asked him about his difficulties, he said he didn't understand what a Paladin would do in that situation and couldn't even pretend to be that selflessly good natured. It's like he was completely unable to understand the motivations of a truly good person. I know him pretty well, and that actually kinda fits with his personality."
Conclusion
During the interviews, I asked the participants if they could identify players in their group based on a log of their characters activities, every respondent replied that they could easily identify members from their group using only that information. Participants also remarked that they have observed similarities in the characters played in multiple games by players in their regular group. “Sometimes I have known people who play the exact same character as the first time I met them and some play vastly different players, but even the people who play those different characters all will have some common denominator, some personality trait that links the person playing to the character.” Jas Kettletipper Gamer. The bottom line is that a relationship exists, that is certain. The nature of the relationship, on the other hand, is fluid and is not easily defined and quantified. We have explored parts of the relationship but there are likely unknown factors that need to be investigated in greater depth.
References:
Fine, Gary Allen. 1983. Shared Fantasy: Roleplaying Games as Social Worlds. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Fine, Gary Allen. 1989. “Mobilizing Fun: Provisioning Resources in Leisure Worlds.” Sociology of Sport Journal 6:319-334.
Hughes, John. 1988. "Therapy is Fantasy: Roleplaying, Healing, and the Construction of Symbolic Order." Presented in Medical Anthropology Seminar. Department of Prehistory & Anthropology, Australian national University.
