“It’s What My Character Would Do”

This phrase is sometimes brought out by players in tabletop role-playing games to justify actions that are harmful (or at least annoying) to the rest of the party: “It’s what my character would do.”

My answer to that is: “Then your character wouldn’t be a member of this party.”

Role-playing is, of course, an important part of the game. We take on the personalities, histories, and motivations of characters who are not ourselves and tell stories about them. Sometimes, those motivations can lead to situations where characters come into conflict. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with having conflict, stress, or even outright hostility among the characters in a game, but when conflict between characters becomes conflict between players, that’s a problem that needs to be resolved.

Adventures are, after all, as Bilbo Baggins put it, nasty uncomfortable things that make you late for dinner. The characters in a role-playing game are very often not having a good time, but the players should be. Some players thrive on intra-party conflict; others abhor it. Sorting out what is and isn’t acceptable at your table is an important part of a session 0 conversation. You can have whatever rules suit your group, and if everyone at the table enjoys playing out character conflict, then go for it, but a good player should not be playing in a way that makes other players’ experience worse.

People who like intra-party conflict will sometimes claim that avoiding conflicts is a betrayal of role-playing. “In this situation,” they say, “my character would attack their character. It’s what my character would do.” But this attitude itself reflects a shallow approach to the role-playing aspect of the game.

Role-palying isn’t just about actualizing your own character’s deepest wishes; it’s also about exploring the dynamics of the group as a whole. Players need to remember that they are not just playing a character with a background and motivations, they are playing a character who has agreed, under some terms, to travel, fight, and work with a group of other characters. It may be an alliance of convenience, they may be working together with gritted teeth and watchful eyes, but they have agreed to work together all the same. Playing out how they manage to keep working together even when their interests collide is a greater and often more interesting role-playing challenge than deciding to do something even though it pisses off your fellow players. If you can’t play your character in a way that allows your fellow players to enjoy the game, then your character wouldn’t be a member of that party to begin with.

Keeping a role-playing game going isn’t always easy. It takes a good-faith effort by everyone at the table to make sure that everyone else is having a good time, even when things get rough for the characters they’re playing. Your goal as a player should always be to make sure the game is good for everyone, and sometimes that means putting in the effort to figure out how your character would decide to put the good of the group ahead of their own interests. It’s what your character would do.

Image by Erik Jensen

Of Dice and Dragons talks about games and gaming.

Review: Blindsight by Peter Watts

Recently I’ve been trying to read more SFFnal classics among my normal selection. I can’t remember why I added Blindsight by Peter Watts (published in 2006) onto my library holds list. When it finally became available and I started to read, I discovered that one of the characters is called Jukka Sarasti (which is a Finnish name), so perhaps that was it.

Content note: spoiler alert!

Current Reading Blindsight

The novel’s events start in the year 2082. A first contact situation arises after thousands of unknown devices burn up in Earth’s atmosphere in a coordinated manner and radio signals are detected near a Kuiper belt object.

Earth sends a ship captained by an AI (called the Captain) to investigate. Theseus is crewed by five augmented humans or transhumans, including their leader, a genetically reincarnated vampire (Sarasti). When the crew wakes from hibernation they discover that Theseus was rerouted mid-flight to a new destination in the Oort cloud. Orbiting a previously undetected rogue gas giant is an enormous, constantly growing object, presumably a vessel, which the crew dub Rorschach.

The Theseus crew begin studying Rorschach with telemetry and excursions despite some very hostile environmental conditions. Additional challenges are posed by psychological effects (hallucinations) and extremely fast, multi-limbed organisms on Rorschach, and on Theseus the crew’s aggravation with the narrator, synthesist Siri Keeton. Eventually relations between Theseus and Rorschach culminate in physical attacks, and only one crew member, Keeton, is sent back to Earth in an escape pod with copies of the information collected before Theseus detonates its payload to destroy Rorschach.

What was especially delightful is that—setting aside Sarasti, who as mission commander and a predator is kind of outside the crew anyway—Theseus’s crew consists of two men and two women, and everyone is described the same way regardless of the configuration of their bodies. Skills and personalities are what matter most. (This is especially enjoyable after reading certain other classic SF novels, which I will leave unnamed to languish in their stifling obsolescence.)

Another interesting detail is that Susan James, the linguist in the crew, actually carries three other personalities or cores in her head, all working and socializing in harmony, and collectively referred to as the Gang by the rest of the crew.

Blindsight turned out to have one suprisingly topical detail. The Gang figure out that despite conversing with the Theseus crew seemingly normally, Rorschach doesn’t really understand the communication. This sounds very much like the recent discussion of Chat-GPT and other AI engines, doesn’t it?

One of the strengths of Blindsight is that it fuses elements from both the so-called hard sciences and the social sciences. Surely SFF (and all storytelling, for that matter) is at its strongest when it’s questioning our perceived realities or possible realities, starting from what makes humans tick. I’m quite tired of SFF that takes bland “and then they went to x and did y” travel narratives and merely cloaks them in fancy wrappings.

Alas, Blindsight has quite a few horror elements and closes with a rather despondent situation. Despite being skillfully written and constructed, it’s therefore not for me.

Blindsight was followed (in 2014) by the novel Echopraxia to make up the Firefall duology.

ICBIHRTB—pronounced ICK-bert-bee—is short for ‘I Can’t Believe I Haven’t Read This Before’. It features book classics that have for some reason escaped our notice thus far.

Quotes: Bottles Rattling with Explosive Sneezes

I gather that Becky Chambers’s new Monk & Robot series has gotten a mixed reception. Broadly speaking people either love it or are frustrated by it. Since I love Chambers’s Wayfarers series, I thought I’d check the new series out.

Current Reading A Psalm for the Wild-Built

I’m still not yet sure what, exactly, to think except to say I see why the dichotomy has arisen. Here’s one section that I found simply mind-boggling:

“The wagon’s lower deck quickly lost any semblance of organization, evolving rapid-fire into a hodgepodge laboratory. Planters and sunlamps filled every conceivable nook, their leaves and shoots constantly pushing the limits of how far their steward would let them creep. Stacks of used mugs containing the dregs of experiments both promising and pointless teetered on the table, awaiting the moment in which Dex had the brainspace to do the washing-up. A hanging rack took up residence on the ceiling and wasted no time in becoming laden to capacity with bundles of confettied flowers and fragrant leaves drying crisp. A fine dust of ground spices coated everything from the couch to the ladder to the inside of Dex’s nostrils, which regularly set bottles rattling with explosive sneezes.”

– Becky Chambers: A Psalm for the Wild-Built

The section starts quite well, and I see why the word cozy is applied to the series. Then, sadly, it gets worse. I don’t even terribly mind the mess in a food-prep space (dirty dishes to the ceiling and a coating of dust), as it could conceivably be just eccentric. (I mean, I prefer a clean home myself since I’m allergic to dust, and plant dust doesn’t help, but to each their own.)

But. Dex is “regularly” sneezing “explosive[ly]” all over the space where they mix the teas they’re offering to people they serve as a tea-monk.

Excuse me? SNEEZING—REGULARLY—ON DRINKS THEY SERVE TO OTHERS?!?

Disgusting is an understatement! The exact opposite to cozy. Ew! Ew, ew, ew, eww!

I do get that getting a book to print takes a good long while (a highly technical term, that). I wasn’t able to find out when Chambers started to write A Psalm for the Wild-Built, but the publishing deal was announced in July 2018 and the first book published in July 2021. In the acknowledgments for the sequel, A Prayer for the Crown-Shy, she writes that she finished book 1 “just before lock-down started” and handed in book 2 “three months before I was eligible for my first [covid vaccination] jab”. It is therefore possible that it was not feasible to change the text.

Still, I should think that it’s not too much of a stretch to NOT SNEEZE ON FOODS AND DRINKS. In real life or in fiction. With or without a pandemic behind you (i.e., having been filled to the gills with information about cough etiquette and sneezing hygiene).

EWWWWWWWWW!!!

Chambers, Becky. A Psalm for the Wild-Built. New York: Tordotcom, 2021, p. 22-23.

Image by Eppu Jensen

Serving exactly what it sounds like, the Quotes feature excerpts other people’s thoughts.

I Know You’re a Barbarian, But What Am I?

The ancient Greeks had certain stereotypes about the people they called barbaroi: Romans were brutes; Scythians were drunkards; Persians were perverts, and so on. Like all ethnic stereotypes, these conventional views were based on prejudices and assumptions rather than truth. Not everyone necessarily believed in or agreed with these stereotypes, but they were recognizable elements of Greek culture in the same way that “French are cowards” or “Italians are reckless drivers” are recognizable stereotypes today. But what stereotypes did other peoples have for the Greeks? We don’t have very many sources that offer non-Greek views of the Greeks, but there are some hints that suggest that the common view of the Greeks, and Athenians in particular, is that they talked too much.

The Greek historian Herodotus reports a story that a Scythian named Anacharsis had traveled in Greece and come home to Scythia with a pointed opinion on the Greeks:

In fact, I have heard a story told by the Peloponnesians about Anacharsis, who was sent by the king of the Scythians to Greece to learn about our ways. When he returned, he told the king that all the Greeks strive for wisdom except the Spartans, but the Spartans are the only one who talk and listen thoughtfully.


Herodotus, Histories 4.77

Since the Spartans were famous for being people of few but well-chosen words, the point of the anecdote is that other Greeks talked to much and said too little. We can compare the story of Anacharsis visiting Greece with Herodotus’ account of the Greek scholar Hecataeus visiting Egypt and getting a lesson from the priests there about Greek pretensions:

The scholar Hecataeus was once in Thebes and recounted his genealogy back to the sixteenth ancestor, which he made out to be a god. The priests of Zeus did the same thing for him that they also did for me, though I made no such claims about my ancestry. They led me into the hall of the temple and counted out the wooden statues that were there, which equaled the number they had already told me. Every high priests erects a statue of himself there during his lifetime. Pointing to these statues and counting as they went, the priests showed me that each was the son of the man before him, from the one who most recently passed away back to the earliest of them all. When Hecataeus claimed to be descended from a god in the sixteenth generation, they did not believe that was possible. They instead traced the ancestry of the priests by counting the statues, each one a piromis, the son of a piromis (piromis being their word for a gentleman), counting back three hundred and forty-five statues, and not a one of them a god or demigod.



Herodotus 2.143

The stories of Anacharsis and Hecataeus both come to us from a Greek source, so neither is a direct report of a foreign view of the Greeks, but it is interesting that they seem to have the same point. Anacharsis approved of the Spartans because they were careful with their words. Hecataeus got put in his place by the Egyptian priests because he had made an outrageous claim before listening to people who knew better. In both cases, the Greeks would have been better off if they talked less and paid attention more. Since Herodotus was widely-traveled and had spoken with people of many different cultures, he may be giving us something reflecting an authentic perception of the Greeks by outsiders.

The richest source we have for outside views of the Greeks is the Romans. The Roman perspective is complicated because so many Romans admired and identified with Greek culture, but when we hear negative views of the Greeks from Roman sources, they often tend the same way: Greeks, and Athenians in particular, talk too much.

The Greek antiquarian Plutarch, in his life of the Roman politician Cato the Elder, reports that Cato’s opinion of the Greeks as long-winded and superficial:

He dealt with the Athenians through an interpreter, although he could have spoken to them himself […] He said that the Athenians were astonished at the speed and punch of his [Latin] words, for what he said briefly [in Latin] took the interpreter many words to say [in Greek]. It was his opinion that on the whole, the words of Greeks came from their lips, those of Romans from their hearts.


Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder 1.12

The Roman satirist Juvenal gives a similar anti-Greek attitude to his character Umbricius:

Quick-witted, damned audacious, always ready with a

speech, and they can out-talk Isaeus [a famous orator]. What do you

suppose that one is? He’s brought us a bit of everything:

schoolteacher, professor, surveyor, painter, wrestling coach,

seer, tight-rope walker, doctor, magician—your hungry little Greek

does it all! Tell him to fly and up he goes!


Juvenal, Satires 3.73-78

While we don’t know what words non-Greeks would have used for the Greeks, parallel to the Greek word barbaros for non-Greek-speakers, there’s a good chance it was something along the lines of “blabbermouth” or “bore.”

History for Writers looks at how history can be a fiction writer’s most useful tool, from worldbuilding to dialogue.

A Compelling Mashup of Columbo and Star Trek: TOS

Someone ingenious—who only goes by the moniker cursedtrekedits on Tumblr—photoshopped Lieutenant Columbo (played by the inimitable Peter Falk) into screencaps from Star Trek: The Original Series. Take a look:

Tumblr cursedtrekedits ST-TOS Mashup5
Tumblr cursedtrekedits ST-TOS Mashup4

Very nice, isn’t it! Make sure to visit cursedtrekedits’s Tumblr for more; I’ve only shown two of the photos.

Although I haven’t seen either series in full, this combo seems plausible—with a wink and a little handwaving—and I’d definitely watch it. 🙂

Images by cursedtrekedits Tumblr.

Hey, look! We found a thing on the internet! We thought it was cool, and wanted to share it with you.