Impression Management
Impression management is the regulation of our roles, and often involves projecting certain traits that are desirable in a situation while suppressing others that are not. This requires an ongoing evaluation of the setting, audience, and other actors and may differ dramatically from one scene to another. For this reason, Goffman (1959) feels that the concept of self is not inherent but is rather the product of the scene in which the actor is participating. One of the fundamental problems with this method of social interaction occurs when two or more conflicting roles must exist simultaneously in the same social scene. Consider the confusion that would result when a worker who is known by his boss as the “sycophantic employee” but is known as the “edgy, aggressive coworker” to his friends must attend a dinner with both his boss and fellow coworkers present. When the accepted definition of the situation has been discredited, the actors may pretend that nothing has changed if they find this strategy profitable to themselves or wish to keep the peace, or it can result in extreme discomfort and even confrontation. Roleplayers experience the similar kinds of conflict in gaming because they are required to maintain the two often-conflicting roles simultaneously.
This method of viewing social interaction is extremely valuable in explaining the ways in which different players and characters interact with one another. The relationship between the player and their character is directly analogous to the front/backstage concept of dramaturgy. Each character must respond to the same considerations that Goffman discusses for social interactions, such as setting and the presence of other characters. The players must also undergo this process among themselves as they play their characters. Successful and enjoyable roleplaying can only exist when the members of the group are all able to appropriately enact impression management of both themselves and of their characters, even when the two come into conflict with one another.
Character Knowledge vs. Player knowledge
Additionally, roleplayers can have difficulty separating events that occur within the fantasy world and events that are take place in reality. The most common expression of this duality occurs when a conflict of character knowledge versus player knowledge arises. Just because the player is aware of something, it does not necessarily mean his character shares this information as well (Waskul & Lust 2004). Separating in game and out of game knowledge is one of the most difficult skills for new participants to master. “Metagaming”, which is the term used to describe a player’s refusal to enforce those boundaries on themselves, is one of the deepest taboos in gaming society and is considered just as unfair as lying about a dice roll. (Waskul and Lust 2004)
Characters often have advanced knowledge that could radically alter the effects of the game. A player that has more than a passing familiarity with the game system is likely to know the game statistics of many of the creatures they encounter, but the character is unlikely to be able to describe the creature in terms of easily definable statistics. "A player may know the hit points of an ogre because as a player you just read the Monster's Manual and are transferring that knowledge to your character." (Waskul and Lust 2004:348). If a monster has a very specific vulnerability, the character can unfairly exploit this based on the player’s out of game knowledge. Similarly, if the narrator has a particular page open in the reference guide that references a specific creature, the players are expected not to use this knowledge to their advantage by preparing spells that would be uncommonly useful against it or purchasing special weapons.
While it is often known and even discussed that the player knows things the character doesn't, the reverse is also true. The character has knowledge and skills that the player does not have. When a character takes up the hammer and anvil, he might craft a fine sword if his skills dictate that he has this ability. The player is likely to know very little about how to actually forge a weapon, but this in no way hampers the character's success. Another way this can affect game play is that each character has an extensive background of which only a very small portion has been documented. This history contains a lifetime worth of knowledge relating to lifestyle and profession of the character, but the player does not have access to the information. This is often resolved when the narrator gives the player a clue or useful fact because it reasonable to assume that tidbit would have existed in the character’s memories due to their background. It is the narrator's responsibility to fill in these gaps whenever they are relevant to the progression of a scene or if the character's actions would differ if they were aware of a fact. For example, a character might consider using his iron sword to break down a door made of adamantine. If the character has any skill as a blacksmith, he would know that the sword will eventually break but the door will remain because of its unusual hardness. In a situation where the player is not aware of this but his character would be, it falls to the narrator to notify the player.
This can cause even more difficulties when roleplaying mental and social attributes. It is not particularly disruptive when there is a great discrepancy between the player's physical attributes and those of their character because they are never required to demonstrate their monsterous strength or catlike reflexes. When there is a significant difference in the player and the character’s effective level of mental or social traits, however, it can potentially damage the integrity of a frame. To prevent this, the narrator has the option of policing the roleplay. If a character seems to exhibit activity that is not reflective of his actual ability level, the narrator might declare that what the player is trying to do is impossible for him to accomplish. For example, if a character is supposed to have an extremely low intelligence but his player comes up with an elaborate tactical plan, the narrator might declare that the plan is beyond the comprehension of the character.
It becomes a greater roleplaying problem when the player has the deficiency and the character is the savant."The shared nature implies that relationships within a gaming group are constrained by the members perceptions for what variables cannot be transcended under any circumstances, for example intelligence or maturity." (Hughes 1988:5). Many characters who are supposed to be exceptionally charismatic or brilliant are often impaired by the natural limitations of the player. These are the most common problems because roleplaying games tend to require characters to act out social interactions in addition to rolling dice for a check. If a character forged a sword, the player would likely just roll dice to measure success. However, if a character was attempting to bribe a local official, he might be required to role play the interaction and then roll the dice to determine success. A combination of the two results, usually with a small positive or negative modifier applied, determines how well the player handled the situation. In most cases both are used as a form of denial of success. If the player botches the interaction or if he fails the roll, he fails the encounter.
Diplomacy and a Double Chance for Failure
This is interesting because the double chance for failure is not repeated in any other type of check. In one forum I attended, Monte Cook (perhaps the best known author of D&D material) mentioned that he prefers to allow the roll to supersede the actual interaction. He reasons that we do not require a player to be proficient with a weapon for his character to wield it, so we should not require a player to be articulate for his character to be charismatic. While his logic seems to make sense, many of the gamers I have interviewed would disagree with him.
Another problem that arises is the ability to effectively step into a role that is drastically different from the primary role of the player. It is often difficult for some people to play characters that have different perceptions about the dichotomy between good and evil. While the majority of games involve the characters portraying individuals seeking to promote good in the world, there are also campaigns in which all of the characters are aligned with the forces of evil. It is often difficult for "good" people to alter their own moral frames enough to allow them to convincingly play evil characters. Narrators, who are routinely required to play the villain, seem to have more ease resolving this issue. Fine (1983) explains that "Although there is attachment between the referee and his NPCs, it is not like the identification that players have with their characters." (pg.224) After speaking with several narrators, it seems likely that because narrators are called upon to play so many different roles in each scene they maintain an additional level of detachment from the characters they control.
Conclusion
While roleplaying is, after all, just a game, it carries a much greater impact than the average recreational game. "Because role-playing games necessarily involve impromptu discursive acting in circumstances that are mediated by rules of probability and chance, they create a unique set of social-psychological conditions that further distinguish them from games like chess or backgammon." (Waskul and Lust 2004:349) In no other game is it truly possible to lose oneself in the character. In chess, for example, it would be absurd to say that one truly identifies with the knight. In roleplaying, the identity of the player and that of the character can become entangled, and the impact of the role may not cease when the dice are put away. The transformation must be embraced, but it must also be compartmentalized when the necessary.
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.
Goffman, Erving 1974. Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
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.
Lust, Matt; Waskul, Dennis. 2004. “Role-Playing and Playing Roles: The Person, Player, and Persona in Fantasy Role-Playing.” Symbolic Interaction 27 (3): 333-356.
