@Ghost said in Tulpas or Roleplaying?:
The sheer number of people who MU that treat their characters as an extension of their OOC selves, one-upped a step further to be assumed sentient friends with feelings and human emotions, then inserted into fictitious settings with monsters, character death, and romance?
I don't know about the number - it's possible we suffer from selective bias since we obviously notice only the weirdo cases.
However you're quite correct in that it's the lack of awareness regarding the OOC/IC line combined with a complete disregard for the fact it's strife and challenges that make characters fun that's causing a chronic issue in games, lack of good ol' fashioned IC antagonism. I am not even talking about player-versus-player, and not even about the non-violent aspect of it, but any antagonism as expressed in the vague possibility bad things could happen to someone's PC, or that the PC might be taken out of their element, derailed from the path they were on or diverted from one course of action toward another.
None of us would probably keep read a book or watch a movie about people whose lives are perfectly functional and who're quite happy with their lives but it seems some want to play Mary Sues of exactly that kind, and who'll respond very negatively to staff, STs or heavens forbid, other PCs from messing up their perfect existences. Which means the rest of the players get conditioned to tread very carefully indeed just in case we invoke someone's wrath since no one wants to have to deal with that; run a plot about a sub-faction trying to block the Consilium votes that's being roleplayed about or an NPC pack entreating on a fresh PC pack's territory and suddenly it's flame on.
I don't get that. Dude, if your pack's stuff is never threatened it's literally worthless.