Intraparty Conflict

[Brennan Taylor]

This is a question inspired by the basic conflict described in this thread:
[Long] GM Refusal to Explain Ruling

I am not making any comment on the actual discussion on that thread, but I am rather interested in something that arises in my mind from the original argument between the player and GM: something that has come up for me numerous times in my previous games, and which remains a thorny issue. This is what we used to call the "intraparty conflict".

When two player characters engage in a physical conflict where the life of one or both of the characters is at stake, something happens to the GM role in the Social Contract. I have found that players demand that the GM remove himself as much as possible from his role as "Game Master" and only apply rules in the strictest sense. This arises, I believe, from a basic mistrust of the GM as a neutral arbiter in the case of intraparty conflict, and a reduction of the GM's role to a minimal interpretation of the rules. When this has happened in my games, small rules issues have become the subject of heated debate, and I find myself far more on the defensive as a GM. I feel the need to fully explain every decision and try to remain scrupulously neutral to both players. Playing out these conflicts also takes far longer than typical conflicts against NPCs.

Is this experience typical for everyone, and is there some way to keep these situations from becoming such a strange, different experience in play?

I think, to a certain extent, all of the things I describe stem from a strong proprietary sense in players for their characters, and dropping back to a strict legalistic standpoint (heavy reliance on rules) is a way to avoid out of character conflict between players. Any other thoughts on this?

[Andrew Morris]

This is what we used to call the "intraparty conflict".

I'm used to it being called PvP, for player vs. player, but I know what you're talking about.

Is this experience typical for everyone, and is there some way to keep these situations from becoming such a strange, different experience in play?

In my personal experience, this happens a lot and it's rarely strange. But then, I'm mostly a LARPer, and PvP is the norm in most of the LARPs I play in. I have seen this kind of situation get ugly in some table-top games, though. But I'd still say it's more common for the players I know to take it in stride when this happens. Hey, I'll even give props to the other player, if it was a job well done.

I think, to a certain extent, all of the things I describe stem from a strong proprietary sense in players for their characters, and dropping back to a strict legalistic standpoint (heavy reliance on rules) is a way to avoid out of character conflict between players. Any other thoughts on this?

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by "strong proprietary sense" for characters. I mean, I tend to really get into my characters. But I don't get upset if another PC kills my character, so long as the reasons make sense. If it were along the lines of, "oh, I'm bored, so my character attacks yours," I'd probably be bothered. I still wouldn't get all worked up about it, I'd just lose respect for the other player.

[TonyLB]

Mega-short-post:  There's a difference between "character vs. character" and "player vs. player".

[Mike Holmes]

In general, the problem is that the form of play has changed, possibly only momentarily. That is, what you're describing outside of the PvP play (I've used the other term, too, but PvP is currently popular, and short), is play in which the players consider the GM to be an adversary in a way. That is, it's his job to play the adversaries, and provide adversity. As such, when the PvP conflict starts each player worries about the GM being against them and handing over the victory to the opponent with a fiat ruling.

That is, it's OK for a GM to suddenly have more orcs appear to challenge the party, but when the player is competing against another player, the playing field has to be level, and the GM sending in orcs to aid player A would seem unfair to player B.

There are lots of ways to solve this. The first is to get some better trust between all of the players and the GM.

Another thing to consider:

Is this experience typical for everyone, and is there some way to keep these situations from becoming such a strange, different experience in play?

In the Hero Quest game that I'm running, let's see what the PCs have been up to:

[*]Thomas has been seduced by Aysha, but he's also tried to kill her twice.
[*]Regina has fallen for Thomas and has tried to kill Aysha.
[*]Aysha has fallen for Marek, who recently killed her sorcerer ally.
[*]Marek tried sorta to put the moves on Regina, but she managed to stun him by foiling his magic.
[*]Thomas is in love with an NPC named Alitia, who tried to kill Aysha and the sorcerer.
[*]Fahja is in love with Alitia, and they recently tried to kill each other.
[*]Fahja tried to kill the sorcerer, and Aysha's demon servant (after the sorcerer had sent him to hell for a bit).
[*]Thomas has tried to kill Lhan on no less than three occasions and is usually stopped short by Regina - though the last time they met, Thomas killed Lhan's zombie servant before Lhan escaped into the shadows.
[*]Aysha knifed Lhan (Nathan said that he'd never played in a game where he felt that the character he was injuring was so real a person).
[*]Lhan is trying to kill his own daugher, who is about to join Aysha's cult.
[*]Rharohi fought Thomas, who was aided by Regina, over a matter of tribal law (but, hey, it was only a tribal challenge, so nobody got seriously hurt).[/list:u]
Heck, most of what these PCs do is try to either get each other in bed or kill each other.

Is it a problem? Well, no, because nobody is competing. This is hard for people to understand, but the players are collaborating with each other. Oh, the players curse at each other, and they root for their character, but in the end, they know that Hero Quest won't likely allow a PC to permanently harm another PC. So it's all in good fun to advance the plot.

It's all a matter of competition. Get rid of the competition, and there's no problem.

Mike

[Luke]

Hi Brennan,

As you know, I've had a lot of success running PVP scenarios at cons this past year. I've found that players really having tangible opponents and allies at the table.

But I have noticed a little retreat on my part. I conduct these scenarios in a very hands off manner. I only arbitrate rules, there's very little narration or scene manipulation on my part.

At home, our group is very accustomed to PvP rivalry, but we have a fairly well-spoken code that outright murder is supremely frowned upon. There has to be acknowledgement on both sides of the fence before I'll allow players to draw swords on each other in BW. Unlike Hero Quest, death comes swiftly to the unwary.

But aside from that limit, we have a long tradition of intraparty conflict. I encourage it. Hell, in our current game, two players were playing up being buddies. Behind the scenes they were both manipulating each other, prepared to offer the other up in exchange for their final goals.

hope that helps,
-L

[xiombarg]

I think, to a certain extent, all of the things I describe stem from a strong proprietary sense in players for their characters, and dropping back to a strict legalistic standpoint (heavy reliance on rules) is a way to avoid out of character conflict between players. Any other thoughts on this?

I've seen this, and I've done this as GM. I think that when this happens -- and it doesn't always happen, as Mike points out, as it depends on the players to some extent -- it happens because IC conflict is sometimes really just a veneer for an OOC issue that the GM is actually afraid to address because he doesn't want to "break up the group".

This is nearly always a clear warning sign of dysfunction, and that the issue should have been addressed before it became dysfunctional in-game behavior. Often, once the incident happens, it is tough to get the real OOC issue out in the open, because in discussing the incident people will retreat into "my guy" mode as a way of covering their ass. "No, there was no issue with Bob there, that's just what my character would do."

[Eric J.]

<joke>

When two player characters engage in a physical conflict where the life of one or both of the characters is at stake, something happens to the GM role in the Social Contract.

Yeah, the GM has to rely on a totally new combat ruleset.

Is this experience typical for everyone, and is there some way to keep these situations from becoming such a strange, different experience in play?

I don't think that there's any easy way of doing this.  I'd just try to quickly teach everyone the new ruleset for the game, how you're now attack dice do as much damage as damage dice (Though I suppose it depends on how sharp your D20 is).  It also becomes less aparant what roles each of the players are taking on and since metagame for this type of play would have to occure on a purly metaphysical level, you're probably in for a barrel more problems than you might think about at first.

</joke>

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Brennan Taylor]

This is nearly always a clear warning sign of dysfunction, and that the issue should have been addressed before it became dysfunctional in-game behavior. Often, once the incident happens, it is tough to get the real OOC issue out in the open, because in discussing the incident people will retreat into "my guy" mode as a way of covering their ass. "No, there was no issue with Bob there, that's just what my character would do."

I think you are right, here. Typically OOC conflicts can lead to these situations. I haven't had these sorts of troubles in years, and usually there was some disfunction in the group already when a PvP situation breaks out (at least, a PvP situation that leads to the phenomenon I discussed above).

[Mike Holmes]

To make a point again, I think that the confusion over the arena is what causes the OOC conflicts. That is, one player assumes that PvP is not a suitable arena for conflict, but then another player takes advantage of the player's trust, and competes. Then the competed against player feels betrayed. Causing the OOC problem.

That is, I don't think that these things start out as OOC problems, but they develop into them. Because the CA isn't stated such that everyone is on the same sheet of paper.

Mike

[Brennan Taylor]

Mike,

Yes, your point seems very relevant. I think it is a problem with incoherence, and since the players have different goals the conflict between the two characters is interpreted differently by each player. This leads to the bad blood between the players and can even break up a group (as has happened to me).

[captain_bateson]

The first time I can ever remember my character attacking another player character was in a Rolemaster game where the GM told the other player, "If you fire your bolt, it will hit [my character] in the back." The GM told him that about ten times. The other player chose to ignore him and shot my character in the back. I attacked, though did not kill, the other player's character. There were clear IC reasons for my character's attack. Of course, there were clear OOC reasons as well, but they developed from the same incident as the IC reasons. It wasn't a prior OOC conflict brought into the game.  

I have seen my share of OOC conflict played out within games as well. I used to play with a guy who inevitably, no matter the character, tried to kill the rest of the party whenever he felt that he wasn't taken seriously enough by the rest of the [OOC] group. I also once had a player in a game I was running start cutting off the heads of the other player characters because he was upset with me for OOC reasons. It certainly does happen.

However, I once played in Amber campaign in which my character killed two other player characters. One of my best friends played the first character. There was no OOC animosity or issue. It was strictly IC. And, in fact, I felt terrible about it during and afterward. I apologized to my friend profusely. It was a big victory for my character, but it was a nerve-wracking event for me.

The second character I killed I also felt bad about, because the other player character was no threat to mine and was, in fact, trying to escape into Shadow when my character caught and killed him. But my character thought (for various IC reasons) he was a threat. Once again, I had no OOC issues going on with the other player. It was completely and IC thing.

So, both do happen. Why is it so strange? First, because the stakes are so high for both of the players. Even if the fight isn't to the death, one person's character is going to get one up on the other, which will be a blow to the character's ego, and, therefore, with some players, the player's ego as well. The player's image of the character is suddenly at risk in a way it's not when fighting an NPC villain. The group (if there is one) will talk about the fight forever, both IC and OOC, and one person's character may well be stained for the rest of the campaign for losing. Also, no one likes losing in front of a group of their peers.

It's strange for the GM because he or she probably doesn't want to upset either player. But will almost certainly have to. If the GM applies the rules fairly and impartially, the player with the weaker character (in whatever field of battle being used) will be upset when his or her character loses (or dies). If the GM fudges or cheats, the player whose character has the upper hand according to the mechanics will be upset. Also, depending on what happened IC to cause the fight, one or both players will feel that the other is getting away with not facing the consequences of his or her actions, making player character actions seem unimportant. A player may complain, "There's no reason for him not to pee in my canteen every night if you're going to protect him when I try to kick his ass." Either way, someone feels slighted, either because the other player was protected or because their own character wasn't.

Also, in a normal PC vs. NPC encounter, the GM is only dealing with two sets of interpretations of the rules: the player's, and his or her own. In a PvP conflict, there are now three interpretations of the rules that the GM has to juggle: his or her own, and those of each player. Even if the GM does his or her best to remain scrupulously neutral and follow the rules to the letter (or the house rules, as the case may be), one or both players is still likely to feel cheated if the GM does not rule in his or her favor, no matter what the rule says.

Oh, and another thing that has been a big issue for me: If I sense the GM is protecting the other player, I get angry because I fear negative consequences on my character that wouldn't happen otherwise. For instance, if the GM protects the other character so no one will get hurt, I fear that the other character will come back for revenge later and that the GM won't protect my character. (I have actually seen this a lot. It's not usually malicious. The GM decides, in the interim, that he or she was wrong to protect the other character, and vows not to do it again). Since the 2nd bout is often arranged by the other character to his or her advantage, things often go poorly. Player A has Player B on the ground and wants a coup de grace. The GM obviously saves Player B (teleports him out, lets him scurry away, whatever). Later, Player B poisons Player A's character and Player A dies because the GM protected Player B. That's happened to me a number of times and is very frustrating.

So, there's a lot going on. How to make it less strange? Do it a lot, as noted above. Eventually you'll get used to it. Maybe make explicit how you will handle PvP conflict before one ever happens, particularly outlining how things will and will not follow the normal rules and the normal way of handling things OOC (like, for instance, if players can challenge rulings normally but not in PvP, they should know that before they ever get into PvP). You know, the best PvP combat I ever had was one where the other player didn't know he was fighting me (for various reasons) and so there was no OOC weirdness. Obviously, most PvP fights won't be like that, but maybe separating the players into two different rooms so that you can go between them to get their actions and tell them what's happened without them shouting at each other or any kind of OOC conflict happening on top of the IC... and the GM with a third room to think... Bringing in an impartial GM to adjudicate PvP? Not very practical...

On the other hand, it occurs to me that maybe PvP being weird is good. Maybe that keeps players from attacking each other more than necessary. Food for thought.

Sorry for the novel.

[Mike Holmes]

Whoa, lots of issues. You caught me on something. I do believe that primarily OOC reasons do lead to problems in these areas, you're completely right. And we can talk about frequency of occurance and all of that. But the thing is that the only "solution" for the OOC reasons are social. That is, the remedy is for people to be properly social first. This is axiomatic for play. If people don't behave in a social fashion that everyone can enjoy together, then there's no use playing at all. You can't fix this in the game, you have to fix initially OOC issues out of play entirely.

What I'm saying is that the problem of not having a shared Creative Agenda leads to player animosity here with great fecundity. Since, as you put it, the stakes are high. This is a really good point. In most play, the stakes really aren't as high as the character's life. That is, if the character's life were really threatened regularly, then they would die regularly. What happens instead is that an entire adventure or some other block of play may constitute a threat to the character. For instance, in D&D, Hit Points act as a buffer. In most cases, the only question is how many hit points you lose. If things are timed correctly, the only threat to the characters life occurs, if at all, right at the end of the adventure. In Amber as you point out, the GM can provide plot immunity to any character, and, in general, they have immunity from the setting (being paragons within it).

So, in both of these games, and many others, having a player suddenly escalate the stakes to death is an unwelcome shock. Usually the player has a chance to retreat before the character is in that situation. But players can engineer the situation such that retreat is impossible. In general, play is usually set up so that the player has some sense of the gambles that he's taking. Having a PC suddenly become a potentially lethal enemy isn't usually calculated for, because the assumption is party play (I'll get back to that later).

They might even manipulate things to make the PvP confrontation "unfair." Consider the use of poison. In that case, the defending player may not be able to take steps other than to roll a die to save his life. Meaning that you've not only put your characters into conflict, but you've done so in a way that doesn't actually allow competition. Basically you've altered the arena so that a player may eliminate another's character at will. The question then becomes how can you trust another player if this is possible?

You can't. At that point you'd be playing all out against each other, and no "party" play is possible. This, again, can so alter the CA that people can get beyond annoyed with players doing so. And, see, this is where the intrinsic problem lies. In "traditional" play, the PCs are part of a "party." Meaning, essentially, that there's an unspoken agreement that the characters will be around each other for what is really an OOC reason. That is the idea that if you break up the party that play drags. Being OOC, that means that the player has to subvert his character's own motives to play party style to an extent. If he feels that his character wants to go north, and the rest of the party is going south, usually he'll go south just to keep the party together.

Since the player is subverting his own character's motivations, we now have this OOC agreement about how to play that involves keeping the party together. When a player decides to attack somebody, he's failing to subvert his character's motives for the purpose of party unity, and, hence, breaking that contract.

The problem is that most games seem to indicate that the player is supposed to do "what the character would do." Meaning that the player has an instant, "My Guy" defense, built in. Herin lies the means by which many games promote incoherence. They tell the player to have the character "do what the character would do," but then in subtext tell the player to play in party mode. Leading inevitably to this sort of problem. It's only highlighted by actual PvP conflicts such as lethal character confrontations.


Now, one simple solution seems to be simply not to do party play. This is what I do, and what I think that the Amber games in question do for the most part, actually. Is it a complete solution? No, because that merely eliminates one of the ways in which the problem can arise. The problem manifests on a lower level with the distinction between Gamism and Simulationism. Again, any text that tells you to "do what the character would do" is suggesting that you leave your personal preferences behind in making the decision. But competition based Gamism means that the players are comparing themselves to each other - preference has to be a part of it. The player is saying that they prefer to win over losing in this case.

So, again, you typically see this behavior in G/S incoherent designs. In D&D, for instance, the game is obviously about killing things as a group and taking their stuff. But then it also says that it's about having your character "do what the character would do." So, as soon as a player goes to PvP, he's voiding the more functional mode for the game, and going sim on the party. Again using the "my guy" excuse for any problems that occur.

In the HQ game above, it's not because the players are "used to" PvP, there is no PvP. There is character vs character, but no player vs player (as mentioned). Because in the mode of play we espouse, the players do not associate directly with the character in that ego-linked manner that you indicate, Captain. They not only accept that their characters will fail, they expect and even desire failure. Much in the way that we find the ups and downs of watching a movie to be exciting. As such, they want their protagonists to get beaten up, and don't take it at all personally when it happens.

Yes, if thier characters died in these conflicts, that would be a problem, as the player would actually lose something important - their ability to continue to participate in the creation of that character's story. But, fortunately, I use Hero Quest, where character death as a random result of the system is an impossibility. In HQ, the only way a PC can die is if the GM thinks its a good idea, dramatically. Meaning that, in practice, nobody dies unless the player feels that their character should meet an untimely demise (it's even rare then), in which case the player loses nothing.

So, can you see how important system is in ensuring that PvP does not become an issue? Coherent play, and rules that do not militate against themselves are key in making sure that this problem doesn't rear it's head.

Mike

[captain_bateson]

Mike:

Because in the mode of play we espouse, the players do not associate directly with the character in that ego-linked manner that you indicate, Captain. They not only accept that their characters will fail, they expect and even desire failure.

Question. In your HQ game, are you sure that it's the system and not that you have a good group of players? No matter your system, if the players didn't buy into the idea that failing is okay, there would be problems, no? Conversely, if you're running D&D with a group of players who don't let OOC animosities affect their character's actions, you would never run into "my guy would do that" syndrome (which I think is mostly a problem if the player's character wouldn't do if not for OOC tensions). What do you think? I tend to think it's still a social problem more than anything, as you said at the beginning of your post.

BTW, it's great that your players don't link their egos to their characters. But a lot of players do. I've seen it a LOT. And I do it too. Not so much in party games or games where the functioning of the party and the game takes precedence over roleplaying as we've been discussing. But in Amber, where I guess I get into deep Sim (I think), where I'm trying to think like my character and such, I get snared. The transference starts and threats and animosity directed at my character start bothering me. I don't know if anyone else is like that, but I find it very difficult to get really super into my character and not have some sort of ego attachment happen. (Which doesn't mean I get mad if anything bad happens to my character: things that make sense with regards to the plot and consequences of my character's actions don't get me upset... but when I feel my character is somehow getting screwed, watch out!)

I'm not even going to get into the very good point you made about the incoherence of "playing your character" in a party game. I think you hit that one on the head. I think it does almost encourage the "my guy" defense. (Personally, I don't like party games much. But, when I have to play one, I try to make up a character who WOULD stay with the party so that I don't have to violate my character concept in order to participate in the game. I think getting players to do that might help a lot in party games.)

But competition based Gamism means that the players are comparing themselves to each other - preference has to be a part of it. The player is saying that they prefer to win over losing in this case.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this part (in the sense that I'm not sure I understand GNS and Forge terminology enough to parse the sentence, not questioning the value of the sentence itself). Let me ask: Do you mean that, even though both players' characters want to win, that it doesn't mean both players want to win?

Whoa... yeah, I guess that's true, if I'm understanding it right. I have been in situations where I just talked to the other player and said, "Okay, what do you think is going to happen here?" and we just hashed it out without getting too far into who would win. But that was mostly when I knew that my character either was going to clean house or get decimated so that the outcome wasn't at stake. I dunno... I may not be a big enough man to step back and not care whether my character wins or not, or even want my character to lose, in a character vs. character conflict. (Are we or are we not using PvP as a general term for this? Or are we using PvP and character vs. character with two separate meanings?)

Of course, I come out of a very competitive gaming group, with the players competing and jockeying for position in the social pecking order of the group, and characters competing within the game in much the same way. So, while I have learned to be the bigger man in a lot of situations, when it comes down to direct PC vs. PC conflict, I'm not really able to step back and be impartial or disapassionate. That might just be my weakness, though I suspect it's pretty common in the gaming population in general. But I could be wrong.

Lots of stuff to think about, Mike. Thanks!

[DannyK]

Mike:

(Personally, I don't like party games much. But, when I have to play one, I try to make up a character who WOULD stay with the party so that I don't have to violate my character concept in order to participate in the game. I think getting players to do that might help a lot in party games.)

That's a good point -- I've heard a lot of people advocate that on the RPG.net boards, as sort of a compromise between being true to character and metagame practicality.  There was even a long, psychologically interesting essay on how to create a "loner" character who nonetheless will work in the party structure.  
I've done it myself, although always with the feeling that I'm going the long way around the problem.  I'm not sure how to analyze this in G/N/S terms.