My character wouldn't do that!

[Marco]

Once upon a time we all made fantasy characters. I made a paladin. This guy had (it was Fantasy Hero) a powerful forcefield (so he could be all cool in his tunic and no armor), healing, light, etc.--all of which was contingent on him living up to a universal code of conduct.

The GM had made the adventure before seeing our characters.

First scene: we're recruited by a powerful (but young) noble to break into an ancient holy building and use the mechanism within to see the future of the upcoming poltical upheval.

I was speechless!

"My. Character. Would. Not. Do. That."

I mean, it was all right there on the character sheet. I'd discussed the character with the GM (this was back in high school--the discussion wasn't deep and done with any sort of contractual agreement on his part--but he'd seen the guy, discussed the limitations, okayed everything ...).

I had a choice.

I rationalized that I'd go along to stop anyone from getting killed (I was traveling with friends, one thing I was NOT required to do was turn in criminals or bring law-breakers to justice--just defend the weak, stuff like that). But *me* breaking in? That was a violation ... for whatever reason (even if the would would die if I didn't--but getting my powers back would be easier then).

We went in. I made it through part one of the adventure with my powers intact (I could enter a connected ruin without problems). When we crossed the threshold into forbidden territory. POOF. There went half my points. More than half. My whole ultra-cool ass-kicking character evaporated! I didn't even have any armor!!

I was pretty distressed. Frankly.

Not going on the adventure woulda meant sitting out (back then) and there was a large group and it was an all weekend game and it was at MY HOUSE! I mean, walking was an option but I wasn't up to it.

I really loved my character.

Even to this day, I think I had a valid complaint (yes, my character did "do that" but under protest).

Even worse to play immersed and in character I had to be all hearty and up-beat and act like a leader (which really made bitching at the GM difficult).

So: yeah, I thought I was wronged. The social conditions of the game would've greatly and strongly penalized me for not living up to my internal conception of character.

The problem was that the GM made the adventure before we all got together and made characters (that was one of the last times *that* happened) and he stuck to his guns (including stripping me of powers!)

Now: this turned out to be one of the best, most long-running fantasy games I've ever played in. To date, I think it's the top 1 or 2. It was magic. It had the mojo. There were times when I *did* have a choice of losing my powers (I got them back with a humerously annoying treasureless quest--the GM making a point not to apologize!--and it was okay, I'd bitched him out. He agreed it was a raw deal. Then he gave me the quest and I, somehow, saw the humor in it).

The point of the story is that I think that if the GM had made the game after seeing my character (under the same social conditions) he'd have been unequivically in the wrong (IMO). Whatever unstated social contract that existed, I think clearly a traditional GM ought to be taking PC's into account rather than, for example, expecting them to just buck-up and change in order to fit a game world (clearly this is a gradient--this is an extreme case).

On the other hand, we didn't really have a good solution when it got down to it because of poor planning and our method of execution (the GM didn't tell us what the first adventure would entail--something else that we've changed too).

-Marco

[TonyLB]

Actually, depending on social contract the GM might have been wholly in the wrong, even if nobody had a problem with raiding the holy site.  Not (IMHO) because you have a vested right to play your character to the hilt, but perhaps because you have accorded yourself a right to meaningful choices.

Let's assume, for the moment, that your social contract is such that nobody will be prevented from participating importantly in the game, whatever the reason.  I highly recommend this clause, by the way, it clears up a lot of grief.  People think it's impossible to enforce only until they start working to enforce it.

Suppose that clause is in place, and the GM says "You have a choice... you can do what I tell you or you'll be prevented from participating importantly in the game".  They have lied.  You don't have a choice, because not doing what he tells you to is an instant breach of social contract.

Now not having a choice may not be a big deal.  Lots of functional social gaming contracts include (or would if they were honest) the clause "When the GM needs or wants us to do something we'll do it, no matter how aggravating it is."  But if that's not in your social contract then you probably have something roughly like this instead:  "The players will have the right not to do what the GM wants or expects, and this shall not, itself, lead to any other breach of social contract."

If you had both of those clauses in place then the instant your GM said "Do this, because I need you to, or else the social contract will break" he was, himself, breaking the social contract.  People would be right to be angry, even if they all wanted to raid the forbidden temple.

Which is a rather long-winded (or, if you prefer, precise) explanation of why saying "This is the story, you can play along or go home" is a bad idea with some groups.  Especially, of course, when any player can say "No, I'm already AT home!  You go home!"

Do you feel that you had those two statements in your social contract?

[Marco]

A
Which is a rather long-winded (or, if you prefer, precise) explanation of why saying "This is the story, you can play along or go home" is a bad idea with some groups.  Especially, of course, when any player can say "No, I'm already AT home!  You go home!"

Do you feel that you had those two statements in your social contract?

I'm not sure what two statements you mean--the last two? No. The GM was never railroady. Let me explain.

1. I didn't have to go along with anything (even back then like 20 years ago). The GM would not have forced me to.

a) The GM did not have another prepared adventure so we'd have been struggling if I didn't go along. He'd have done the best he could, as would I--but it wouldn't have been as well thought out or, ultimately, as satisfying (I think--it would be a gamble). The GM knew me. He didn't know I'd play a paladin but he knew the kind of stuff I liked in a game and it was all there in the situation he'd created.
b) There were three other players. On a time-slicing basis, which is what we did for splits, I'd have one hour to their three. That would mean playing only a fraction of the weekend.
c) Our group had some good comraderie but the other two players were stoked for the adventure (and it was a good one) and the opening had been powerful.

2. I don't find nobody will be prevented from participating importantly in the game, whatever the reason to be problematic. The player, of course, will have to take a share of responsibility in that, though. If a player plays a hermit that doesn't engage with anything then I don't think the GM is required to "go and get him" or even "keep offering him game-hooks."

Basically a valid 'reason' for not particiapting importantly can be 'the player chooses not to.'

So I don't know if that squares with you.

3. I don't think our SC (then) was particularly different than what you suggest (you might disagree). Why I find the GM not wholly at fault was because the way we generated the game had the weakness that the characters might not line up with the situation and because of group size (it later grew to 5 players) and our method of handling time-slicing and because of prep-time considerations splitting up wasn't elegantly handled.

It wasn't forbidden or frowned uppon--but we were there to play together and the system had this particular weakness.

Becuase I was part and party to that system, I shared responsibility for its weakness.

-Marco

[jdagna]

I don't think any one person is entirely at fault here.  As a GM, I have sometimes required players to change their character concepts to fit a group or campaign, and I have also changed the campaign to fit a character concept.  There has to be a back and forth agreement ahead of time, I think.

What blows my mind is that it seems trivially easy to fit what you wanted to do here.  Instead of a holy site, why not an unholy site?  Why not a competing deity?  Why not a mage's study?  It sounds to me like all the GM had to do was change the name of the place and his entire scenario would be intact AND compatible with your character at the same time.

If the relic had to be holy to show the future, he could have made some other changes - was it stolen?  guarded by evil?  desecrated and in need of restoration?

So I think my analysis is that this situation had to be a misunderstanding.  I have to think the GM thought it would be cool to make you break your code and have to earn back your powers.  Or, more dysfunctionally, he didn't like your character concept, but didn't want to veto it, so he forced you to disable parts of it (if only temporarily).  In other words, I suspect that both you and the GM were following what social contract you had... but weren't communicating well about your expectations from this situation.

[TonyLB]

By "two statements" I meant the two in red.  From your description I gather your group had a vague commitment to the first ("Nobody shall be prevented from participating") but no commitment to the second ("Player can choose not to do what the GM expects without causing a breach in social contract").

1. I didn't have to go along with anything (even back then like 20 years ago). The GM would not have forced me to.

No, but it sounds like the consequence of not doing what he wanted would have been that you didn't get to participate at anything like the level the other players did.  That would be a violation of "Nobody shall be prevented from participating", at least in its strongest form.

So did you have the opportunity to both do something the GM didn't expect and maintain your social contract (by participating on an equal basis)?  And if not, did your group have a sense that forcing you to that dilemma ("Give in or walk") was wrong?

I have to think the GM thought it would be cool to make you break your code and have to earn back your powers.

I agree this is what looks most likely.  You took a great big disadvantage, which made a huge number of your powers cheaper, and the GM saw it as something he was obligated to address (as well he should).

But I don't know enough about the social contract to judge that yet.

[Marco]

What blows my mind is that it seems trivially easy to fit what you wanted to do here.  Instead of a holy site, why not an unholy site?  Why not a competing deity?  Why not a mage's study?  It sounds to me like all the GM had to do was change the name of the place and his entire scenario would be intact AND compatible with your character at the same time.

Ah, well, I pay for the overly short synopsis. Let me address the dysfunctional bit first.  The GM didn't dislike my character at all. Nor did he want me to lose my powers (I say that with assurance. I was there and I've asked him over IM while writing this!). He felt he had a good, strong, fun adventure we'd all like (including me) and that things would sort themselves out. He also knew that (a) there was some treasure I could get (there was--something in there freely gave its treasure and supported our cause) and (b) made it clear that a defender of good would at least be interested in the mission.

(I've had a conversation with him just now)
When it came time for me to enter the place, however, he realized irrevocably that, yes, I'd lose my powers (see my note on my disad being absolute below). Until then, he'd (correctly) assessed that since I was doing things for "the right reason" my Paladin character could reasonably go along with it.

He was right about that. I could.

What he hadn't thought ahead to was that once I cross a boundary for specific reasons, I would break a law.

My perspective: I figured I'd break a law sooner or later even though our entry was through a ruin we could legally enter (with our patron's permssion--no one knew they linked up but her).

His perspecitve: I'd be okay because I was in the service of good (even if it was misguided good).

Big mistake. But it was clear-cut from my POV. He wasn't thinking far enough ahead and about the absolute nature of my defects.

As for modification:
The site was a *government* site (the single god of the land, which had two "incarnations/interpertations", both good had blessed the place). But the problem was that I was tresspassing into territory forbidden by law. I was breaking and entering to a lawful building and that was counter to my code.

The crux of the begining of the game situation dealt with us doing right for the wrong reasons. The person who had hired us was sympathetic (if a little scheemy) but beleived she was going to save the city and a great force for good.

Getting involved with high-level politics got us involved with things that were above our station.

The city had four ruling houses based on the suits and values of playing cards. Each 25 years when the kinds retired, the deck was shuffled and people changed their values. The deck worked according to a benelovent fate--but she believed that it had become corrupt and random and would ruin the city (there was reason to think this, it wasn't so).

The Four Kings didn't believe her so, in desperation, she turned to us (actually, we rescued her outside the walls of the city coming from a failed consultation with someone else she was trying to get help from).

A main part of the problem was that my code (as defined by me) was absolute. The GM's module had the good guys (us) going up against the good guys (the ruling houses). Making the artifact corrupt to allow me in wouldn't have preserved the dungeon structure (which gets even more complex--and was very innovative)--essentially we were in the ancient, utterly un-enterable buildings of the architects of the world (who had set up the city and the deck since before time).

The interactions were designed to catapult us into a web of intrigue at the higher levels--but, again, with most of our antagonists being good-guys (the people who suspected we had done something illegal! And were right!).

So it wasn't that simple of a situation to change (even now, looking back, I think it woulda been difficult to arrange what happened with minor tweaks). But probably possible. And maybe I'm missing something. But that's the point. I think if the GM had seen an easy out, he'd have taken it. I think he missed it too!

-Marco

[Marco]

The Player can choose not to do what the GM expects without causing a breach in social contract.

You'll have to explain how that works in context. I think a lack of railroading implies that (i.e. I can unexpectedly not go on the mission and the GM will have to scramble to come up with stuff for me--but I won't be with the rest of the party (definitionally) and won't go on the preped adventure (definitionally).

With a mid-sized group (4-6 players) that did, commonly, split up, we had "fair" time-slicing rules (1 hr per person in the group, more if the GM allowed it, usually for smaller groups). We also made a serious attempt to have other stuff (a game machine, computer games, movies) available for the off-group.

I could've claimed my hour but with a high-energy start to a weekend of gaming that wasn't what I wanted.

So did you have the opportunity to both do something the GM didn't expect and maintain your social contract (by participating on an equal basis)?  And if not, did your group have a sense that forcing you to that dilemma ("Give in or walk") was wrong?

I didn't involve the other players (they saw it, they were, IIRC, surprised--but there wasn't any choosing sides). This didn't become a power-struggle with me and the GM. There was no 'argument' either at or away from the table. There was some discussion and I made it clear that I wasn't happy--but I saw several alternatives and chose the one that suited me best (go along, see what happens).

The dilemma wasn't seen by me as "Give in or walk."

I had the thrid option of "do my own thing" and hope it's good and I couldv'e done that--but, again, I figured the GM had some cool ideas so I'd need to pay the price and hang with the group.

But I didn't like having there *be* a price. That happened because of the way the game and characters were structured. Which, again, I took partial responsibility for.

-Marco

[Eero Tuovinen]

Might be entirely irrelevant, but here's another perspective: if my old group from the teenage times had encountered a similar situation, the player would have been expected to take it like a man.

As we'd have seen it, using a system that applies advantages and disadvantages in a point-buy system means that you the player are yourself responsible for much of what happens. This especially includes the disadvantages you take. By taking the disadvantage you give explicit permission for the GM to use that disadvantage to hose you - it isn't a disadvantage otherwise.

This is an entirely functional gam/nar style of play, and I actually have some trouble figuring out what it is that you find despicable in the situation. Would you expect that the GM would specifically avoid the weaknesses of your character? Wouldn't that skew the whole point-based system, if a player could get an unwritten protection from the weaknesses of his character just because those weaknesses would diminish the character?

What I'm interested in hearing, didn't you at the time have no notion at all about just taking it and waiting for better times? And if not, why play Hero? Presumably the GM of this kind of game would quite specifically prod the characters in their weaknesses, one at a time, making sure that all get their points' worth of grief. Why did you feel that your character shouldn't be hosed, if you put such a gigantic flaw into his powers?

From what you told us, your sense of unfairness at the time was based on forcing your character to do something he wouldn't do for meta-game reasons; break your principles or don't participate in the adventure. However, haven't you considered that doing it your way would be misapplying the rules? Consider: if the GM was obligated to skirt around your character's principles in building his situations, those principles wouldn't be a flaw. You're essentially demanding that any situation would afford your character both the win and his principles, in which case he'd never have to bend from the latter.

You could certainly argue that the GM should have started the scenario a little farther back, before the group decided to attack the temple. Maybe you'd have chosen some other way to the objective, something that wouldn't break the principles. But this is ultimately the same thing - if there weren't such a feasible second option, you'd still consider it breaking the trust to put your character into a situation to try to gain something that cannot be gained lawfully. In my view, your only recourse would be if the task at hand would have actually been evil, in which case the game would have derailed simply because of character choice - apparently you however supported the goal to such degree that you chose to lose the gods' favor instead of twisting the scenario.

In your place I would have considered the paladin's code of conduct an objective set of limitations set on him by the gods. They are not his values per se, only insofar as he loves his gods. Thus, when placed in this situation, he has to choose: is my duty towards the gods more important than the object of the adventure? Even when my powers are on the line? And what am I, if I make moral decisions based on preserving my powers? Apparently you made the choice of supporting the endeavour, even against the will of the gods. I'd think that this would be a nice opportunity to play those flaws, not to bitch about it. And a valid choice to make, to boot. You got your powers back, didn't you?

Then again, from what I've seen people don't have very healthy perspectives on the whole point-buy thing. For some reason it's taken as a given that the character takes the maximum number of flaws, and then play delicately avoids those same flaws to maximize character effectiveness. It's crude, but necessary if the GM isn't willing to dynamically spin the adventures to make use of the flaws - something that's only been common advice for the last couple of years. Anyway, that's a topic for another thread.

However it may be, I just gave the above as an optional viewpoint on the commonly occurring situation. With me it's been vampires - players first make vampire characters and then try to dress the situation in a way that gives them the right to never confront daylight or holy symbols. I've quickly abused those notions when GMing. I'm sure that you have good reason for your indignity, just thought that you'd benefit from an alternative viewpoint.

[TonyLB]

I'm pretty much with Eero on this situation.

In a game where the explicit social contract was clearly "Play with the group or your fun will be lessened" Marco made a character with such rigid restrictions that he couldn't play with the group in many situations without having his effectiveness by the restrictions.

Rather than either accepting reduced fun or accepting (and enjoying) limited effectiveness, he decided to hold a grudge against the GM and the situation for problems they had nothing to do with.

To hold a grudge for twenty years... I'm boggled.  I don't have that sort of stamina.

[Lee Short]

I think the problem lies in the Party Construction phase -- ie, the generation of the PCs.  You the players should have been given constraints by the GM as to what kind of characters were appropriate for the game, and worked within those constraints.  Once you got past that phase with your character, there wasn't much that either you or the GM could do to fix things.  That's one of the reasons that I am a big fan of "let's all sit down and make our character concepts" rather than "let's all go off separately and make our characters and hope they work."

It sounds to me like it was a simple error of judgement -- the GM didn't see how your character would be inappropriate, and so he didn't give you the guidance you needed at that phase of the game.  I've done that as GM.  I've also given perfectly clear guidance as GM, and had the players misjudge whether or not their character fits within the parameters I've laid out.  Sometimes it was a simple miscommunication of exactly what those parameters are.  For my gaming style, getting this right is of paramount importance because I'm often reluctant to do stuff to fix this once the game has started (see The Reformation in Surt for an example).

[ffilz]

One thing I'd caution is that we don't have complete information.

Marco, what did the GM tell you when he went over your character with you? Did he make it clear how he handled big disads?

When I ran Fantasy Hero, I pretty much encouraged the players to all take a healthy dose of disads, and pretty much encouraged each character to take a psych disad of this strength (Hero system actually used to encourage this because you got one psych disad at full value, one at 1/2, and one at 1/4 value [for FH, for Champions it was 2 at each discount]). If I turned around and hosed the players to the extent Marco was (assuming there really was no choice other than proceed and lose power or not play), that would have been very unfair.

Now these problems are why I really don't like disad systems any more. I saw too many psychotic characters come out of the design system. I had a pacifist healer in my campaign, and honestly, she should never have been an adventurer. And being pacifist did cost her. But I never forced her to kill.

Now it's quite possible for a game to be built around testing the players with their disads, but I think that needs to be a pretty explicit part of the social contract.

But Marco raises an interesting point. What should a GM do when he allows character design independant of his campaign plans? What are his obligations when he was planning story X and the players design to story Y? Now ideally the GM has communicated his desires up front, and all the players buy into story X, and design characters that will be fun for them to play in story X (even if the character might appear better suited to story Y).

I recently made such a mistake when I was having a few players create characters for RuneQuest. I just handed the players the books of cults, so one player chose a Lunar cult, which I actually didn't want to have PCs in. I should have been up front and said "Choose from this list of cults, talk to me if you really want something different."

Frank

[Marco]

I'm pretty much with Eero on this situation.

In a game where the explicit social contract was clearly "Play with the group or your fun will be lessened" Marco made a character with such rigid restrictions that he couldn't play with the group in many situations without having his effectiveness by the restrictions.

Rather than either accepting reduced fun or accepting (and enjoying) limited effectiveness, he decided to hold a grudge against the GM and the situation for problems they had nothing to do with.

To hold a grudge for twenty years... I'm boggled.  I don't have that sort of stamina.

Are you talking about me? Holding a gruge? I'm boggled. The guy's one of my favorite people in the whole world and my favorite GM (currently). I did accept "reduced fun" and found the limited affectiveness somewhat funny (even then).

I thought that was all explained up there.

Did I miss something?

-Marco

[Christopher Kubasik]

I don't know if this is Forge-worthy...

But Marco, for what it's worth, I don't know what Tony and Eero are on about (nor anyone who's seeing this as a Big Problem -- when you made it clear it wasn't.)

Guys, he's giving an example of My Guy Wouldn't.... and it all ended fine. This wasn't a Dear Abby posting... He was illustrating a point he wanted to make about My Guy.

I think part of the problem (like so many RPG/internet discussions) is being obscurred by the fact that people hear an RPG term ("My Guy" for example) and actually interpret eight ways from Sunday.  (My Guy in Dr. X's sense; the defense "You're not gonna tell me how to have fun" sense and many more).  

But it was pretty clear from the first post there was no rancor, no grudge, no.... nothing but fun. Marco was caught off guard. Went with it.

It sounds like other people have had problems with fellow players in similiar situations.  But the situation with Marco, as he clearly laid out out, there in black and blue-grey, was not really a problem.

Best,

Christopher

[Marco]

I don't know if this is Forge-worthy...

But Marco, for what it's worth, I don't know what Tony and Eero are on about (nor anyone who's seeing this as a Big Problem -- when you made it clear it wasn't.)

Guys, he's giving an example of My Guy Wouldn't.... and it all ended fine. This wasn't a Dear Abby posting... He was illustrating a point he wanted to make about My Guy.

I think part of the problem (like so many RPG/internet discussions) is being obscurred by the fact that people hear an RPG term ("My Guy" for example) and actually interpret eight ways from Sunday.  (My Guy in Dr. X's sense; the defense "You're not gonna tell me how to have fun" sense and many more).  

But it was pretty clear from the first post there was no rancor, no grudge, no.... nothing but fun. Marco was caught off guard. Went with it.

It sounds like other people have had problems with fellow players in similiar situations.  But the situation with Marco, as he clearly laid out out, there in black and blue-grey, was not really a problem.

Best,

Christopher

:: raises glass in a toast ::

My hat's off to you Chris. You're dead on.

:)

-Marco

[Marco]

One more follow-up post here:

I agree with Lee that the core problem was that group design was not well handled. This was, in fact, a primary learning experience for us. You can see in the Actual Play posts I have here how I do things now. This had (IMO) nothing to do with point based construction (an AD&D Paladin can lose his powers if he acts out of alignment). It had nothing to do with "disads" (my character had some disads like Hunted Forces of Evil but was not forced to behave in a good or lawful manner).

It was born of youth and inexperience (and even so, the GM was *spot* on about the stuff I wanted in an adventure).

Finally: my character hung with the party throughout the game. The fact that the other two primary characters (a thief and a shape-changing dragon) were somewhat shady wasn't a problem.

As I made it clear: I was not an agent of justice--so long as they weren't attacking the weak or harming the innocent I didn't have any problems with them (and I didn't, we were a mostly good party). There were some times I counseled them and a few times that we clashed but even then it was "in character" and there was no actual heat.

Finally: after the first game the GM was with the program for my character. It's not *at all* that he didn't play to my disadvantage--he did. And the power limitations *were* powerful (all sorts of things I couldn't do).

There was never again a case where I invoked my-guy-wouldn't in that game.

Maybe next I'll tell you about the last time I said "My guy wouldn't do that" but I swear up and down I have no 20-year grudges for it so it'll be less interesting ;)

-Marco