It Slices! It Dices!

"The difficult part is changing one's own attitude toward one's own ability to think."

In the article about creativity I was reading, this statement appeared to suggest a level of required confidence, and in context, how people often felt they had a certain design to how they approached things that was hard to break out of... "the rules," such as they may be.

To me, this statement seemed apt in regards to learning how to use magic.

I mentioned magic because to a large extent, that's part of how I think... it may not be inside or outside any metaphorical "boxes," but I allow a little bit of chance to run away from analysis, a little bit of coincidence to be shaped by my will, and a little bit of pattern-forming to inspire thoughts of conspiracy.

It's also some of what allows me to be a GM. While I have the line, "It's a conspiracy of cartographers?" ringing in my head, GMing to me is like having a map you give someone, and then being willing to go on the expedition to help fill in a lot of the blanks. Sometimes that map is a character sheet, sometimes it's a literal map, a dungeon, or a city...

As roleplayers, we are often called upon changes in our way of thinking in order to play characters who may not have a lot in common with ourselves. (I would say especially as GMs, but that's the typical experience.) Whether it's to change gender, species, occupation, or any of the other labels we commonly associate with description, the differences are telling.

Sometimes I go with, "assumption," as my method. "How would a man react to this?" Well, I don't have the anatomy, but I've a respect for men that suggests that they really wouldn't handle this any differently than I would as a woman. Sometimes I go with research. "Hey, hon, you're a man, what do you think about this?"

(OK, one or two points of data do not "legitimate research" make, unless we're dealing with a question of how my man would react to the ineffable this. That's not gathering data, that's direct observation of the source.)

Of course, my methods of research, as well as my methods of explaining things to myself will colour the results. This is why I sometimes dream that I'm Fiona.

The question I have, when I'm dreaming that I'm Fiona, is, "Which one am I?" I've designed several versions of the character, and their differences aren't always obvious until put into play.

Of course, the answer is, I'm my Fiona. The conglomerate, the aspect of me that makes it so easy to write from "her" perspective. The labels I use to differentiate the versions are removed to focus on the essence of my overall design.

There are methods to encourage getting into the "character mode," including (but not limited to) the rituals of musical prompts, literature, certain movements or positions, and the environment.

I wonder to some extent if that works any differently with GMing. What kinds of rituals help someone get into that mode, as opposed to focused on a single character?

More than just changing how one thinks one thinks, if you would, there's also how someone handles the knowledge. In the old days of BBSing there were opportunities (nay, requirements!) for being "more than one person," on the boards. (On the internet, it's not only too time-consuming, but fairly redundant. [grinning]) My "on-line personas" and I would have to handle messages very differently.

The best way to handle this was via creating patterns... couching them in the terms of "likes" and "dislikes," of course, with emphasis on knowledge that I would split between us... like one of us might be an expert on one field about which the other would disclaim any idea.

I joke that my husband channels the spirit of one of his Amber characters when he plays pinball. He wasn't as good until he created the Pinball Character.

Of course, does that mean with Fiona, I'm now mistress of snarky comments? Nah, I gave up that title a while ago...