Book (series) recommendation for yah, which made me suddenly remember this post: NPCs, by Drew Hayes. (The series that continues on from that is called 'Spells, Swords, Stealth'.) The basic premise is that the story is told from the POV of NPCs from a D&D style game, who are forced to take over for some dead player characters. There's interaction between the NPCs and the players in various interesting ways, including the players being called to account for how they treat NPCs in general.
Oh, and Drew Hayes is also just a really good writer. This is the third time I'm re-reading this particular series, and I've managed to stay up till 2:30 am yet again reading it. (Book 5 comes out soon! Yay!) He even got me to read a series about super heroes (Super Powereds), which is a theme I'd normally never even think to read about.
The way you describe yourself playing has a name: self-insert. Some NTs like to play self-insert. But there are many who consider self-insert less interesting. After all, the game itself is a fantasy, so the character can be one, too. There is also replay value in going back and making different choices.
I haven't played RDR2 (yet), but I remember when KOTOR (Knights of the Old Republic) came out. You can make "light side" or "dark side" choices, and you get specific power boosts if you max out either end of the spectrum. At first I played a light side hero, because that's what came naturally. But as the game progressed, I enjoyed the flavor of the dark side powers more. (C'mon, what's cooler? Stun… or LIGHTNING?) So I decided to build up dark side points. The next quest I did was a side quest where a woman needs money desperately, and all she has of value is this plate that her late husband had. She wants you to sell it for her. But I just took it from her and gave her nothing. She reacted with misery, saying "it's all we had, now we have nothing and we're stuck here." I felt bad. Surprisingly bad. It was just a fictional action I did to a fictional character, but it was to the degree that I thought, ugh, I can't make myself play dark side. I was too much of a softie to even pretend.
Equally surprising to me was how fast I got over it. I didn't feel nearly as bad at the next pretend evil action, and after a few I didn't feel bad at all! Actually it got to be funny, in part due to the absurdity that "I" would do such things. I also loved how my character's face got all gray and distorted.
The whole experience made me think about how deeply empathy is wired into most of us… but also about the mechanisms for overriding it. I mean, there are circumstances where empathic emotions would really get in the way if there wasn't a way to reduce them. Killing and maiming other humans in a war. Giving calm medical assistance to someone screaming in agony. Punishing people who break the law. I really am a softie, so if for instance I think about someone in some shithole prison, it's a very unpleasant feeling. But then if I know they committed some heinous crime, it's like Empathy-B-Gone, suddenly I don't care anymore. (Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.)
Maybe that's what allows NTs who do evil things IRL to rationalize away guilt or other bad feelings they might otherwise have?
There are lots of reasons I don't do evil things IRL. Sure, when I was a little kid, it was just about the consequences, emotional or otherwise. But over time that changed (presumably because my brain developed). So now in addition to consequences there's a bunch of "higher-level" abstracts involved. A sense of justice. Seeing myself as "a good person," whatever that means. Enlightened self-interest. (Good thing, too, because there is surely a lot I could get away with if I were really motivated to.)
Fiction, though, that's different. This type of game is storytelling. Personally, I want to see everything the writers came up with (assuming the writing is good). If there are multiple endings, I go back to trigger each one. I make different characters based on different concepts, with different appearances. Let's see what happens if I say this or say that. What happens if I attack this guy? What happens if I let my character starve? If I really like a game, I want to see where all the boundaries are.
How do we know that characters in RDR2 are not capable of suffering?
Think about why a person would feel pain if they do something like step on a thumbtack. They only feel it because there is a mechanism -- nerves that fire in response to the injury and transmit the signal to their brain, which then processes it in various ways that results in their experience of pain. If the mechanism is blocked, for example if their foot is anesthetized, then they will not feel that pain -- it's not possible. They could still *act* like they did, but then it would only be a simulation.
RDR2 does not have mechanisms for pain or suffering. The inputs are a mouse/keyboard/controller signal that maps to one of N number of choices at a given point in the game. These in turn map to different parts of the script, which the computer uses to select which content to draw on the screen and output to the speakers, as well as which flags to write to memory. The computer does not have a way to make any other distinction.
There are no pathways inside the computer by which the choices alter or otherwise affect the functioning of the computer. It has no processing to recognize things that are "good" or "bad" for it. No place in memory where anything like that is represented, stored, or retrieved. No social context, experience, or ability to make predictions about its future. No consciousness. Suffering cannot take place.
Do I believe that in the future we might build machines/programs that are conscious, self-aware, and capable of joy or suffering? Sure, but we are a long ways off. We're not exactly in Westworld yet. There might be some question as to whether the Westworld androids can suffer or not, but they do demonstrate that they have the prerequisites. And because of that, I think it would NOT be okay to mistreat them. But characters in RDR2 can only suffer in our imaginations.
Anyway, fascinating for sure, and it was cool to read your perspective on it.
As a huge fan of RDR2, and also as neurotypical person, I just popped in to say that this was a great read. I have always thought that the violent things we (or more precisely, neurotypical people) do in games is because it’s fun, but I’ve never thought deeper into WHY it’s fun. I’m not the kind of person to hurt innocent NPCs if I don’t have to, especially in RDR2 (because Arthur owns my heart and I want him to be as good a man as possible), but I can’t deny that letting loose on a first person shooter and blowing up enemies is a lot of fun. But then again to me personally it’s probably more to do with mastering the controls and surviving tough situations, because I’ll have an equal amount of fun with those types of moments where you have to press the right buttons really fast or fail, and when killing blood-thirsty monsters in fantasy games. Scarlet Nexus was a great game precisely because of the battle system where I had to train my hands to switch between superpowers and use them correctly in correct situations to beat the (sometimes massive amounts of) monsters. By the end of the game, when I had all the superpowers the game could offer available to me, and I was switching between them fluidly and in rapid succession to beat the ”level”, I was having more fun than I think I’ve ever had with a game before.
But then again, I’m definitely not the best spokesperson for the stereotypical gamer. I don’t have any interest to mess around a game, hurt NPCs, or go online and call people slurs, lol. Games for me aren’t an excuse to act on some hidden urges — the most violent I’ve ever wanted to be was hit my little brother when he was annoying. Hurting innocent NPCs actually makes me feel guilty, as does accepting payment from a poor NPC, because like, no. You’re a poor farmer barely scraping by?? It’s not right of me to accept money from you, lmao.
Also, 90% of the time, I prefer a game with a solid story (like RDR2, or games like Uncharted, Last of us, and Final Fantasy VII Remake), and those are the games I hold closest to heart. Games like Far Cry, Wolfenstein, and Devil May Cry are fun ways to be entertained for a bit, but at the end, they’re worth one playthrough and then I never touch them again. The fun of the mindless violence is fleeting, if that makes sense, meanwhile a game with a great story and big emotions will make me replay it again and again.
I don’t play this or any digital games, but I think there is something else to why NTs play this the way you say. You said: “This leads up to the question of why it is such an attraction for NTs to do, and I believe that I have an answer. It is because nothing is stopping them.” I think there is something missing from this explanation. I think it releases a ton of stressful emotions for NTs. NTs feel frustration, anger, and helplessness in tons of situations on the daily. The person in front of them doesn’t go fast enough when the light turns green, the fast food server got their order wrong, their spouse is cheating on them, etc. In real life, the consequences of taking violent action against any of these people has consequences that, for most NTs, are to costly. But give them the opportunity to release these emotions in a “safe” way, and they will use every dastardly action at their literal fingertips. The game you describe and the way NTs play it seems designed to give NTs a box to safely rage in. I think, don’t know as it’s not my thing. I know there are a zillion games to choose from and the NTs who play this do so for a reason. I know I would not get an ounce of pleasure from virtually hurting,killing,burning, etc. anyone, but I also don’t carry rage on the daily.
This was a fascinating read. I am not a gamer, so that in itself is interesting to read about. I have not played since the 80s when you had to load games by cassette, clunky things with the most basic graphics. Heck, I even remember TV Tennis! At the time, I was amazed at how immersive and absorbing even the simplest game could be, and I said, I think computer games will become an entire sophisticated art form one day, and it seems that has indeed happened, they are extraordinary, just from what little I see.
The moral questions- it surprises me that people will enjoy being violent in games, it's not something I understand, but yes, I have seen it, back in simpler game times, people at the screen crashing the plane repeatedly or shooting the people that they were meant to rescue. The 'just because I can'. I don't get the fun. Not because I am some wonderful person, but, I suspect, because I am less neurotypical than I had long assumed.
Anyway, lots to think about here, it"s rather like the notion of people's private thoughts, however terrible, not being something that makes them culpable or to be judged in any way. I don't know, but it's an interesting area.
Have you heard about Undertale? Much simpler game in mechanics, but boy, does it play with what you described. How real is suffering of characters who are playthings of a player (and some mirror the player in unsettling ways in this ability), what are consequences of killing only some, of killing none, of killing all (genocide run, which some players chose after playing other runs because of it being as-of-yet-unexplored has some interesting features regarding it's ending) and stuff.
I am not a gamer, I found out about it when I came across a lengthy comic (currently close to the finale, I expect only few more episodes) tha intrigued me with character designs and environment. Then I went on to catch up on the setting. It is centered around two characters and some heavy meta, making quite an extrapolation of a backstory about a scientist that decided that to help those, he cares about, he needs to be willing to do some horrible stuff and then finding out he chew off too much. It is about twins dealing with horrific abuse and each other's different responses to it that threaten to alienate them from each other. It is about broken families and trauma from war and about moral outlooks challenged, honor to one's autonomy, guilt and difficulties with dealing with the aftermath. I cannot tell how realistically are those difficult topics treated, but I found zarla a capable storyteller.
Book (series) recommendation for yah, which made me suddenly remember this post: NPCs, by Drew Hayes. (The series that continues on from that is called 'Spells, Swords, Stealth'.) The basic premise is that the story is told from the POV of NPCs from a D&D style game, who are forced to take over for some dead player characters. There's interaction between the NPCs and the players in various interesting ways, including the players being called to account for how they treat NPCs in general.
Oh, and Drew Hayes is also just a really good writer. This is the third time I'm re-reading this particular series, and I've managed to stay up till 2:30 am yet again reading it. (Book 5 comes out soon! Yay!) He even got me to read a series about super heroes (Super Powereds), which is a theme I'd normally never even think to read about.
The way you describe yourself playing has a name: self-insert. Some NTs like to play self-insert. But there are many who consider self-insert less interesting. After all, the game itself is a fantasy, so the character can be one, too. There is also replay value in going back and making different choices.
I haven't played RDR2 (yet), but I remember when KOTOR (Knights of the Old Republic) came out. You can make "light side" or "dark side" choices, and you get specific power boosts if you max out either end of the spectrum. At first I played a light side hero, because that's what came naturally. But as the game progressed, I enjoyed the flavor of the dark side powers more. (C'mon, what's cooler? Stun… or LIGHTNING?) So I decided to build up dark side points. The next quest I did was a side quest where a woman needs money desperately, and all she has of value is this plate that her late husband had. She wants you to sell it for her. But I just took it from her and gave her nothing. She reacted with misery, saying "it's all we had, now we have nothing and we're stuck here." I felt bad. Surprisingly bad. It was just a fictional action I did to a fictional character, but it was to the degree that I thought, ugh, I can't make myself play dark side. I was too much of a softie to even pretend.
Equally surprising to me was how fast I got over it. I didn't feel nearly as bad at the next pretend evil action, and after a few I didn't feel bad at all! Actually it got to be funny, in part due to the absurdity that "I" would do such things. I also loved how my character's face got all gray and distorted.
The whole experience made me think about how deeply empathy is wired into most of us… but also about the mechanisms for overriding it. I mean, there are circumstances where empathic emotions would really get in the way if there wasn't a way to reduce them. Killing and maiming other humans in a war. Giving calm medical assistance to someone screaming in agony. Punishing people who break the law. I really am a softie, so if for instance I think about someone in some shithole prison, it's a very unpleasant feeling. But then if I know they committed some heinous crime, it's like Empathy-B-Gone, suddenly I don't care anymore. (Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.)
Maybe that's what allows NTs who do evil things IRL to rationalize away guilt or other bad feelings they might otherwise have?
There are lots of reasons I don't do evil things IRL. Sure, when I was a little kid, it was just about the consequences, emotional or otherwise. But over time that changed (presumably because my brain developed). So now in addition to consequences there's a bunch of "higher-level" abstracts involved. A sense of justice. Seeing myself as "a good person," whatever that means. Enlightened self-interest. (Good thing, too, because there is surely a lot I could get away with if I were really motivated to.)
Fiction, though, that's different. This type of game is storytelling. Personally, I want to see everything the writers came up with (assuming the writing is good). If there are multiple endings, I go back to trigger each one. I make different characters based on different concepts, with different appearances. Let's see what happens if I say this or say that. What happens if I attack this guy? What happens if I let my character starve? If I really like a game, I want to see where all the boundaries are.
How do we know that characters in RDR2 are not capable of suffering?
Think about why a person would feel pain if they do something like step on a thumbtack. They only feel it because there is a mechanism -- nerves that fire in response to the injury and transmit the signal to their brain, which then processes it in various ways that results in their experience of pain. If the mechanism is blocked, for example if their foot is anesthetized, then they will not feel that pain -- it's not possible. They could still *act* like they did, but then it would only be a simulation.
RDR2 does not have mechanisms for pain or suffering. The inputs are a mouse/keyboard/controller signal that maps to one of N number of choices at a given point in the game. These in turn map to different parts of the script, which the computer uses to select which content to draw on the screen and output to the speakers, as well as which flags to write to memory. The computer does not have a way to make any other distinction.
There are no pathways inside the computer by which the choices alter or otherwise affect the functioning of the computer. It has no processing to recognize things that are "good" or "bad" for it. No place in memory where anything like that is represented, stored, or retrieved. No social context, experience, or ability to make predictions about its future. No consciousness. Suffering cannot take place.
Do I believe that in the future we might build machines/programs that are conscious, self-aware, and capable of joy or suffering? Sure, but we are a long ways off. We're not exactly in Westworld yet. There might be some question as to whether the Westworld androids can suffer or not, but they do demonstrate that they have the prerequisites. And because of that, I think it would NOT be okay to mistreat them. But characters in RDR2 can only suffer in our imaginations.
Anyway, fascinating for sure, and it was cool to read your perspective on it.
As a huge fan of RDR2, and also as neurotypical person, I just popped in to say that this was a great read. I have always thought that the violent things we (or more precisely, neurotypical people) do in games is because it’s fun, but I’ve never thought deeper into WHY it’s fun. I’m not the kind of person to hurt innocent NPCs if I don’t have to, especially in RDR2 (because Arthur owns my heart and I want him to be as good a man as possible), but I can’t deny that letting loose on a first person shooter and blowing up enemies is a lot of fun. But then again to me personally it’s probably more to do with mastering the controls and surviving tough situations, because I’ll have an equal amount of fun with those types of moments where you have to press the right buttons really fast or fail, and when killing blood-thirsty monsters in fantasy games. Scarlet Nexus was a great game precisely because of the battle system where I had to train my hands to switch between superpowers and use them correctly in correct situations to beat the (sometimes massive amounts of) monsters. By the end of the game, when I had all the superpowers the game could offer available to me, and I was switching between them fluidly and in rapid succession to beat the ”level”, I was having more fun than I think I’ve ever had with a game before.
But then again, I’m definitely not the best spokesperson for the stereotypical gamer. I don’t have any interest to mess around a game, hurt NPCs, or go online and call people slurs, lol. Games for me aren’t an excuse to act on some hidden urges — the most violent I’ve ever wanted to be was hit my little brother when he was annoying. Hurting innocent NPCs actually makes me feel guilty, as does accepting payment from a poor NPC, because like, no. You’re a poor farmer barely scraping by?? It’s not right of me to accept money from you, lmao.
Also, 90% of the time, I prefer a game with a solid story (like RDR2, or games like Uncharted, Last of us, and Final Fantasy VII Remake), and those are the games I hold closest to heart. Games like Far Cry, Wolfenstein, and Devil May Cry are fun ways to be entertained for a bit, but at the end, they’re worth one playthrough and then I never touch them again. The fun of the mindless violence is fleeting, if that makes sense, meanwhile a game with a great story and big emotions will make me replay it again and again.
I don’t play this or any digital games, but I think there is something else to why NTs play this the way you say. You said: “This leads up to the question of why it is such an attraction for NTs to do, and I believe that I have an answer. It is because nothing is stopping them.” I think there is something missing from this explanation. I think it releases a ton of stressful emotions for NTs. NTs feel frustration, anger, and helplessness in tons of situations on the daily. The person in front of them doesn’t go fast enough when the light turns green, the fast food server got their order wrong, their spouse is cheating on them, etc. In real life, the consequences of taking violent action against any of these people has consequences that, for most NTs, are to costly. But give them the opportunity to release these emotions in a “safe” way, and they will use every dastardly action at their literal fingertips. The game you describe and the way NTs play it seems designed to give NTs a box to safely rage in. I think, don’t know as it’s not my thing. I know there are a zillion games to choose from and the NTs who play this do so for a reason. I know I would not get an ounce of pleasure from virtually hurting,killing,burning, etc. anyone, but I also don’t carry rage on the daily.
Thank you! I don't play this game but I love the idea of getting some great horses and going through the rest of it with them!
This was a fascinating read. I am not a gamer, so that in itself is interesting to read about. I have not played since the 80s when you had to load games by cassette, clunky things with the most basic graphics. Heck, I even remember TV Tennis! At the time, I was amazed at how immersive and absorbing even the simplest game could be, and I said, I think computer games will become an entire sophisticated art form one day, and it seems that has indeed happened, they are extraordinary, just from what little I see.
The moral questions- it surprises me that people will enjoy being violent in games, it's not something I understand, but yes, I have seen it, back in simpler game times, people at the screen crashing the plane repeatedly or shooting the people that they were meant to rescue. The 'just because I can'. I don't get the fun. Not because I am some wonderful person, but, I suspect, because I am less neurotypical than I had long assumed.
Anyway, lots to think about here, it"s rather like the notion of people's private thoughts, however terrible, not being something that makes them culpable or to be judged in any way. I don't know, but it's an interesting area.
Hi Athena, I am a longtime reader of your answers and articles. I want to say that reading them helped me a lot and I wish you a happy life.
Have you heard about Undertale? Much simpler game in mechanics, but boy, does it play with what you described. How real is suffering of characters who are playthings of a player (and some mirror the player in unsettling ways in this ability), what are consequences of killing only some, of killing none, of killing all (genocide run, which some players chose after playing other runs because of it being as-of-yet-unexplored has some interesting features regarding it's ending) and stuff.
I am not a gamer, I found out about it when I came across a lengthy comic (currently close to the finale, I expect only few more episodes) tha intrigued me with character designs and environment. Then I went on to catch up on the setting. It is centered around two characters and some heavy meta, making quite an extrapolation of a backstory about a scientist that decided that to help those, he cares about, he needs to be willing to do some horrible stuff and then finding out he chew off too much. It is about twins dealing with horrific abuse and each other's different responses to it that threaten to alienate them from each other. It is about broken families and trauma from war and about moral outlooks challenged, honor to one's autonomy, guilt and difficulties with dealing with the aftermath. I cannot tell how realistically are those difficult topics treated, but I found zarla a capable storyteller.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Undertale
As for comic, this is where it starts, but outside of the links to Next page under the strip there is also number of side things and some jokes in zarla's Handplates folder on DA - https://www.deviantart.com/zarla/art/Best-not-to-look-into-it-575682313
No idea if any of that will be of interest to you.
I prefer chess.
So, I don't play any violent games, so I guess I'm no help here. Well unless you count deer hunter, but I haven't played that in years.
What gaming consoles do you use?
I've noticed this sort of thing in a lot of MMO's as well as RDR2. BTW I didn't know about the cheat, thanks!