Human Behaviour is Patterned

[Shreyas Sampat]

So, I have been thinking about psychology.

Human behaviour is something that has observable patterns.

There are innumerable games which concern themselves solely with the emulation of observable patterns, and optionally with the creation of new patterns that have some credible congruity with those that are observable.

Nonetheless, I know of very few that are concerned with the patterns of human behaviour.

How can this be?

[Bankuei]

Hi,

Just consider the amount of effort it takes for people to reach a meta-cognizance of their own behavior...  Usually when presented with evidence of behavior patterns people tend to either throw up defensive tactics and not consider the idea, or they nod, agree, and not really consider the idea.  For the most part, agreeing/disagreeing becomes a behavior pattern- not an actual process of thoughtful digestion.

With such a game- we'd probably get the same result as a person who sees the world in black and white trying to play Dogs in the Vineyard- that is, all the "real meat" of the concept would go right past them.

I think games that point indirectly to the issues of human pattern conditioning probably do better to address the issue than those that attempt to wrestle it directly.  Consider Unknown Armies' psychological rules, such as the Fear/Rage/Noble triggers and the Hardening rules.  Although fun, they are simplistic at best.   Then compare it to Dog's implicit addressing of ego, greed, jealously, fear, etc. as applied through the various NPCs in towns.

The neat thing about indirect addressing of such issues is that people don't put up their defensive filters as they do when they believe it is being directly addressed to them.  This is why many traditions of philosophy and religion throughout history have preferred to teach by way of story- it takes the focus off the listening, and allows the lesson to bypass and avoid it becoming a "preaching" battle of egos.  Of course, as much as anything else, it still requires a person to actually think about what is going on in order to get it.

Chris

[Paul Czege]

Shreyas,

Nonetheless, I know of very few that are concerned with the patterns of human behaviour.

And would you say those few games mostly "concern themselves solely with the emulation of observable patterns"? Or are there games among this subset that concern themselves with the "creation of new patterns"?

Paul

[Shreyas Sampat]

Paul, of those games, most of the ones I can think of (MLwM being the canonical example) are concerned with pathological behaviour that I'm not at all experienced with, so I couldn't tell you; I don't know the source material or the designer's intent well enough. A few other games work for deliberately unnatural behaviour - Nobilis, for instance.

I can think of only a single example, FVLMINATA, that has a behaviour mechanic whose goal appears to be to produce naturalistic behaviour in a non-stress situation. In my prior post, I wasn't specific enough; this stuff is what I'm asking about.

Chris, as far as your indirection point: I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that there are games that try to address behaviour covertly? I am getting the impression that you're saying, "Well, people don't write those games because other people are hostile to them," to which I say, "But that didn't stop kpfs. Why this?"

I have my own thoughts on this matter, but I'll reserve them for a little while; I'm much more interested in what everyone else has to say.

[Bankuei]

Hi Shreyas,

I'm saying that overall, in rpgs or outside of rpgs, addressing conditioned patterns is usually best done covertly not because people are consciously hostile, but usually there is something that "blinds" them to the idea of patterns or recognizing them.  In extreme cases, we can see people who are being abused who do not recognize that being unhappy, harmed AND used = abuse.  

In general, when we look to pointing out the conditioning of people, we find it in comedy, science fiction, fantasy/myth/religion, or parable.  In all cases, it lacks the overt, "This is about YOU" thing that causes people get riled up.  KPFS works because it is comedic- no one actually takes it seriously, and although the behavior is exaggerated- it still manages to address the topic of dysfunctional behaviors.

I think any game that dives into human issues, whether on a serious level, or a comedic level, is going to hit human behavior patterns.  Dogs in the Vineyard is about people causing problems with other people, and it lists a good set of common problems that come up... Dust Devils & PTA set characters against their own personal issues and behavior patterns, which they either learn to overcome or fold under.  

The key is, these games focus on human behavior, while at the same time leaving space for the group to address it according to their own level of understanding.  So, kpfs?  You could just play it for laughs.  Or you might look deeper and shudder.  Or feel pity.  Or whatever.  Dogs?  You could just try to do right.  Or maybe you look at the Faith and say, "We seem to have a lot of problems for a divinely inspired way of life..."  

The games that work best focus on human issues, but allow a group to approach it at their own level.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Shreyas,

I'm pretty puzzled about this thread topic, because I'm having a hard time seeing that any role-playing (which is to say, in which any Creative Agenda gets expressed) fails to do what you're describing.

Best,
Ron

[Shreyas Sampat]

Ron,

Perhaps I have not asked my question in a clear enough manner, then. Perhaps you can help me restate it by providing some example of the addressing you're thinking of.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

By "addressing," I figure you must be referring to my use of "expressing," in my post. If that's correct ...

... then all Gamist play is about tapping into patterns of resource husbanding, assessing risk to payoff, reversals of advantage and disadvantage, and most importantly, establishing hierarchies of interpersonal status based on performance within arbitrary closed-system parameters.

... then all Narrativist play is about tapping into patterns of recognizable human conflict, as expressed using fictional characters. The origins of these patterns is controversial, but the usual suspects include various aesethetics/metaphysics theories, cultural constructs which are associated with conformity with or rebellion against norms, and sociobiological interpretations of human priorities.

... then all Simulationist play is about confirming shared enthusiasm in a specific set of signs and symbols (semiotics, formally speaking), and in the shared culture which recognizes them.

We can rely, I think, very confidently on the assumption that human leisure activities are often going to center on these large-scale tendencies. The different Creative Agendas are merely the manifestation of these tendencies/interests during the specific activity of role-playing.

Perhaps you mean something different with your use of the term "pattern"? Or that you're focusing on a specific way to bring these things into play?

Or perhaps I should step down from participating in the thread. I'm not sure I'm helping it.

Best,
Ron

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'm talking about game mechanics that explicitly generate human behaviour, not any of this numinous aboutness business.

That is to say, I don't care about CAs in this thread. I care very specifically about mechanics that generate human decisions as their output. FVLMINATA's Influence mechanic is one of these, while, say, the d20 skill resolution mechanic is not, even though, on the level of sufficient abstraction, it's part of a game of resource management.

Basically, I'm indirectly trying to ask, "Games that have declared themselves Sim over the ages have tried to simulate everything but people. Why the weird gap? What's this self-identified Sim phobia of humans?"

[efindel]

Basically, I'm indirectly trying to ask, "Games that have declared themselves Sim over the ages have tried to simulate everything but people. Why the weird gap? What's this self-identified Sim phobia of humans?"

Well, maybe it's naive, but my own thought is that most Sim games are indirectly about "what would I do in this situation?"  Thus, the player's free control over the character is essentially treated as a Holy Thing, except when there are things like mind control of the character involved.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

I don't see where you're seeing a gap. There's a huge number of games that contain personality and behavior mechanics, which encourage, if not outright enforce, patterns of behaviour in characters.

The one that most immediately pops to mind is the ever-ancient D&D alignment stuff.

Others usually come in sets of advantages and/or disadvantages. Count among these GURPS, L5R, Rolemaster, Shadowrun, and I'm sure there are others.

A softer version of this is Pendragon, whereby your character is defined by a number of value pairs and you are rewarded for acting within what those pairs define as a personality.

I'm sure I could go on, unless this is also not what you mean, in which case, like Ron, I'd like to know more about what it is you're looking for.

Cheers,

J.

[Eve]

I agree with efindel. Think of a game that starts: "Think up a character, make it whatever you like, as long as it suits the group's chosen setting. ... This character is you."
This last sentence would pretty much restict the player in exploring his own behaviour, for the very simple reason that the character is supposed to be him. This makes him responsible for every deed he thinks up. This would mean, every possible action is filtered against a strong social code.
Mostly, we play with friends. We don't want to risk them thinking we are very nasty/dangerous persons.

In not explicitly linking the character to player, the player is granted some safe distance. This way he can do more and show more issues about human nature. (assuming human nature is not always something to be proud of)

[Shreyas Sampat]

JMendes, compare:

D&D Alignment: "If you act outside the strictures of your alignment, the DM should punish you."

FVLMINATA Influence: "Someone attempting to Influence a character provides the victim a set of options and makes an Influence check. As the result of the check improves, the options the victim may choose from decreases."

The former is an example of a mechanic that I'm not talking about; its output is not behaviour. The latter is the subject of the question; it's a structured method that actually decides how people act.

Eva, Travis:

That's what I had originally thought.

My bafflement lies in the idea that this sort of thing, if it were well-developed, could be a really strong tool for, say, a person handling a lot of NPCs in a traditional GM-player setup; it allows him to have diverse and complex characterisation without his needing to "get inside their heads" with immersion techniques, writing pages of amateurish prose, or whatever, allowing games to be run with less overhead and more Actual Play. (I guess I'm betraying some assumptions here about what qualifies as AP.)

[Sean]

I'm still a little confused about the distinction, even with the Fvlminata example.

Shreyas, would something like Vin Diakuw's Reverse RPG count as an example of what you're talking about?

[efindel]

Eva, Travis:

That's what I had originally thought.

My bafflement lies in the idea that this sort of thing, if it were well-developed, could be a really strong tool for, say, a person handling a lot of NPCs in a traditional GM-player setup; it allows him to have diverse and complex characterisation without his needing to "get inside their heads" with immersion techniques, writing pages of amateurish prose, or whatever, allowing games to be run with less overhead and more Actual Play. (I guess I'm betraying some assumptions here about what qualifies as AP.)

I'm not sure that it necessarily is "less overhead", though... stopping to check a character's psychological attributes, make a roll, and check the results of that roll can often be slower than the GM simply making a decision.

It occurs to me that many systems do, in fact, already have some sort of system for handling NPC behavior.  D&D has had Morale since OD&D.  AD&D3 has a set of "social skills" for use on NPCs, along with NPC attitudes.  GURPS has something similar, and several of GURPS' psychological disadvantages have associated rules.

(Side note:  these systems get very little use in Actual Play, in my experience, as do similar systems in the original Top Secret and many other games.  I suspect that this fact is part of why these systems don't get elaborated further... a feeling of "people don't use them, so why bother improving them?"... which, of course, isn't necessarily logical, but oh well...)

They both lack some mechanical way of expressing NPC personality... but I'm not sure that such a thing is necessarily that helpful.  It can serve as input to a system for deciding "does this NPC want to pursue this goal", but the range of possible human behaviors is very broad, making it difficult to create a system for "how will this NPC pursue this goal".  Thus, to a great extent, the GM is still going to be stuck with "the hard part".

I'll note that some developers of MUDs and the like have put a great deal of thought and work into creating systems to automate NPC behavior... but few of them have gotten anywhere useful, and they have the advantage of being able to use systems that would have prohibitive handling time in a paper RPG.

Lastly, my experience with Sim-oriented gamers is that they don't tend to write "pages of amateurish prose" or use much in the way of "immersion techniques".  Instead, they make a few notes about an NPC's personality and goals, and use that to guide them in making decisions for that NPC.