Player Conflict! [StarCluster]

[Marco]

If I believe that a player is doing something that will *explicitly* lower my enjoyment of the game (and knows it) and keeps doing it then the rules will not acutally "resolve" that issue

Does the GM in (as you put it) traditional games get a free pass on this issue?

No--of course not. A GM interested in person-level power-struggle would turn me off the same way as a griefer player would.

-Marco

[TonyLB]

So a GM who makes a credible threat to kill your character?  That's acceptable or unacceptable?

[Marco]

Stakes: Johnny can't be trusted.

If the rules are _followed_, that solves the problem. If the rules aren't being followed, nothing can solve your problem.

Forcing the character to act in a trustworthy manner when I win the stakes doesn't solve the problem. A player who is trying to do somethig that will, for example, blow up the ship or hand us over to a killer would not be an acceptable situation for stakes I would want to play for. It also doesn't address the actual play in which Johnny *was in fact* trustworthy under some conditions but, perhaps, not others.

-Marco

[Marco]

So a GM who makes a credible threat to kill your character?  That's acceptable or unacceptable?

I wouldn't play on a GM who got off on killing my character--which is my perception of the "griefer" player. A credible threat by itself doesn't address the issue at hand which is the motivations behind the actions.

-Marco

[Mark Woodhouse]

Stakes: Johnny can't be trusted.

If the rules are _followed_, that solves the problem. If the rules aren't being followed, nothing can solve your problem.

Forcing the character to act in a trustworthy manner when I win the stakes doesn't solve the problem. A player who is trying to do somethig that will, for example, blow up the ship or hand us over to a killer would not be an acceptable situation for stakes I would want to play for. It also doesn't address the actual play in which Johnny *was in fact* trustworthy under some conditions but, perhaps, not others.

Then I must be misunderstanding your issue. What I'm envisioning - and thought I took from your AP - was that the conflict was essentially over "how can I justify character trust?" That's an entirely reasonable stake for a conflict or several, while if your real concern is that the player may be a griefer, that's not something that can be dealt with by rules.

What I think I'm getting from you now, though, is something I've seen before. A character does things that frustrate, annoy, otherwise interfere with your character. Your character responds by blocking his ability to do things. Presto - now no-one's happy. He can't play his character the way he wants to, and you are spending your time and energy on HIS issues, not yours. Left unadressed, this escalates rapidly to player-player animosity.

Unfortunately, there's really no way to address it except through mutual agreement between players. If there's no common consensus over what is and isn't appropriate to do in-character, you either need to make one through negotiation, be willing to contend over it within the framework of mechanics, or you need to use various sorts of in-game pressure to signal each other -which tends to escalate the situation, not de-escalate it.

I think Mike pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[Marco]

Then I must be misunderstanding your issue. What I'm envisioning - and thought I took from your AP - was that the conflict was essentially over "how can I justify character trust?" That's an entirely reasonable stake for a conflict or several, while if your real concern is that the player may be a griefer, that's not something that can be dealt with by rules.

Well, that may have been some people's problems. It's a complex issue and, yes, Mike accords pretty much with what I think (talk about it OOC). The problem for me, however, was not one of justification of trust. It was one of actual trust--and one of respect. I cannot be sure, but I think that Rachel felt disrespected. It was pretty much stated that Rich would have felt disrespected if it wasn't a game ("wasn't a game"--I can't be sure if people on the other side of the Internet were actually annoyed).

Klax said that Satch was rubbed the wrong way but that he was okay with things. However: for an immersive, character-identified player, what's that mean? I'm not sure--but to me it means that if my character is being annoyed and disrespected in the game there is a reasonable chance that I am feeling the same way. If I expand that issue to conclude that the real guy on the other side of the table/IRC-connection really *doesn't* respect me as a fellow player, then we have a problem.

What I think I'm getting from you now, though, is something I've seen before. A character does things that frustrate, annoy, otherwise interfere with your character. Your character responds by blocking his ability to do things. Presto - now no-one's happy. He can't play his character the way he wants to, and you are spending your time and energy on HIS issues, not yours. Left unadressed, this escalates rapidly to player-player animosity.

Unfortunately, there's really no way to address it except through mutual agreement between players. If there's no common consensus over what is and isn't appropriate to do in-character, you either need to make one through negotiation, be willing to contend over it within the framework of mechanics, or you need to use various sorts of in-game pressure to signal each other -which tends to escalate the situation, not de-escalate it.

I think Mike pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Well, we didn't block each other's ability to do things (at least not in an easily defined sense) but, yes, I think that's right. I can tell you though, that I thought it possible that Rich might have, for example, asked to play a villain and see if he could betray us to a crime-lord. I thought it *possible* that Clash might allow that (after all, there is no explicit statement that the GM would prevent such a thing from happening).

There was a point in time where I (and others) thought he might *be* a person sent to kill us.

I have seen cases where a well meaning GM (i.e. one who is not going to enjoy seeing PCs killed) allows a Player to play an adversarial character, thinking it'll all work out. If it *doesn't*--it may not be because the *system* doesn't allow for it. It may very well be (and is in my experience) because as a player, for example, I find that sort of play to be something I don't want to associate with.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Right, the problem is that you don't know if the character is adversarial or not.

The player and GM should tell you. The problem is the hiding of the player motive. If you know he's an antagonist, then this is no different than a villain NPC inserted by the GM, right?

In a game I'm currently involved in, I have a player who I actually sorta secretly brought on board to play an antagonist character. But the funny thing about it is that there were all sorts of telltale clues that we were leaving about, both in-game and in OOC discussion. Strangely, one of the players didn't seem to catch on to it. Just one, all the rest of the players all picked up on it immediately, and played along. So obviously it wasn't very well hidden. In fact it seemed so obvious that for a while I considered that the player in question was simply pretending not to have caught on. Still might be the case, for all I know, he's a clever player.

OTOH, I kept feeling this guilt about it. Should I let him in on what's going on. Because another scenario occured to me, which was that the player was assuming that there was some non-PC vs PC conflict rule in effect (there had been some conflicts of this nature, but they were few, and all far from lethal). So it may have been that he was just working on the assumption that the character he was observing simply could not be an antagonist (and she's a potentially lethal one at that).

Now, I'm using Hero Quest, which I was hoping would solve this problem. Because the way I use it, character death when the player doesn't want it, just can't happen. The same antagonist character, in another game, actually tried to kill other PCs on several occasions. It's great fun the conflict that this brings into play.

But it's fun precisely because everyone understands the ground rules. That when characters are in conflict like this, the players are working together to make for a fun story. Even the player who seemed not to know has used this principle to his own advantage in the game.

Still, I'm thinking I should have said something. It came out last night (at least in part) just how bad the antagonist is, and he rolled with it well. But I wonder. I was taking risks here, just to avoid having to make a clear statement about the reason that the antagonist had been included in play. Which is probably no good reason at all.

GM's love to spring surprises on players, of course. It's one of the great joys of GMing. But you have to watch out as GM that you aren't messing with player trust in doing so. So here's me apologizing to the player in question, just in case.

Again, with the "immersionist" approach of trying to match player knowledge to character knowledge, this is simply a lot more likely to happen.

Mike

[Rob Carriere]

Klax said that Satch was rubbed the wrong way but that he was okay with things. However: for an immersive, character-identified player, what's that mean? I'm not sure--but to me it means that if my character is being annoyed and disrespected in the game there is a reasonable chance that I am feeling the same way. If I expand that issue to conclude that the real guy on the other side of the table/IRC-connection really *doesn't* respect me as a fellow player, then we have a problem.

Marco,
That might be the "immersion-tar baby" in action. I've self-described as immersive (I hate the term, but what can you do?) and your surmise would not be accurate for me. There are, to me, two distinct sets of emotions involved and I can definitely have a blast while the character is right in the middle of a strong negative emotion.

I'm not saying that is what happened in the case you quote, but I am saying that it's a possibility.

As for the discussion you quoted, I've seen that pattern before and as far as I know, there's only way to avoid that type of argument. First you deal with what happened IC. This is a fact-finding stage and emotions of the characters are legit, but emotions of the players are not. Once everybody agrees on what happend, you turn around and talk about what the players thought/felt about this. If you don't do that, you'll keep turning around in circles where "my character thought..." is countered with "...but I felt", which is a category error.

SR
--

[Mike Holmes]

Rob, you're promoting the tar-baby problem (and maybe we all have by using the term here). For Marco's sake, let's just say that the agenda in question is one in which players want and do feel what the characters feel. That's not saying that your version isn't immersion, as it's still somewhat undefined (despite recent efforts). Just that your version is not what Marco is describing.

Mike

[Rob Carriere]

Just that your version is not what Marco is describing.

Mike, cool, that's one fewer variable in the problem. I think this would probably be off-topic for the thread, but I'd be interested in what you used to determine that, because I couldn't figure a yes or no from the IRC transcript--most likely because I have little experience in playing that way.

SR
--

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I'm getting it from Marco. That is, he could be wrong, but we have to assume that his on the spot observations are the correct ones.

Also, I and others have been over the "don't play that way" solution already. If Marco wants to discuss the topic with the assumption of a certain play-style, then I think we have to do so.

Mike

[Marco]

Immersion gets a moderatel bad rap here (for one thing it was often matched with simulationst play as counter to narrativist play which probably didn't help its cred on this board) for another, a lot of the game mechanics that are most appreciated here deal with player-authorship which is usually seen as counter to an immersed state (how true this is, and for how many people, I can't really say though). It's also unclear as to what the term really means (if Simulationists adopted "Immersion Now" as a credo it would quickly be pointed out that "immersion" means many different things to many different people).

I can't tell you what the word means either or if Klax (real person) was in the same mind-state as his character during and after the game (which might be two different things)--but I'll quote my response to another post on the Actual Play thread by the player of Johnny.

What Rick (Johnny) said
To paraphrase Rick, he said that when people weren't responding well to Johnny, he was frustrated and angry: he linked Johnny's own hardscrabble past and lone-wolf attitude to his own (his player's). He pointed out that he uses personal experiences as "touchstones" when playing a role. I think this is key--and I think it's important to understanding something that I would identify as immersion.

I wrote
1. When I go and watch a sad movie I can still have a positive experience even if I "lose myself in the movie" (which I would describe as an immersed state with willing suspension of disbelief) and feel sad (a generally 'negative' emotion) and identify with the character (an immersive state in movie watching terms, at least)

2. I believe this is true because what happens when we connect with *anyone* (fictional or real) is that we are reflecting on our own experiences. Even if we cannot directly relate to, say, a concentration camp survivor, we can all relate to some degree to being sad, scared, or (mildly) persecuted. I suspect this is the "bridge" that lets us relate to that person or those fictional circumstances.

I'm also real clear that this is a choice: it is equally possible to watch a movie and distance one's self from the emotional content by focusing on the lighting, the craft of the dialog, the internal inconsistencies, the set direction, etc.

3. When playing a character from what *I* would describe as an immersive state, I am investing that character with some of my own personal truth. I'm not Dean--but there was some of my truth in that character (and, interestingly--and importantly, stuff that I wouldn't show around on a normal basis like fear of failure and fear of not being good enough).

I have done and seen the therapeutic technique of psychodrama. Psychodrama is a psychological technique that allows people to experience events in relationship that do not or could not exist in reality. It is done by willing participants in a safe and controlled way and is meant to (and does) evoke real, strong emotions for the purpose of therapy.

While I would not say that roleplaying is "psychodrama" I would say that it is fairly clear that immersive play *can be* sort of like psychodrama for the participants. I think that investing play with personal truths can have a structural element to the  play (i.e. a person doing that can still be playing "as an actor" and be aware of his craft) but I think the primary experiential payoff of that mode of play is not the creation of a specifically themed narrative or artifice but rather the experience of being that character (with the entailed emotional states and point of view).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Oh look, "immersion" as a term jacks another thread.

Marco, it's your thread and if you want it to be about this term, then go for it, carry on. If you don't, though, then speakin' from long experience, you might want to cut out the lump real fast.

Speaking only as a fellow reader/poster and not as moderator, I was enjoying the thread and learning from it until you guys took a sharp left turn.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Maybe it's unwise of me--but I'd be curious to hear if anyone had comments about what I last posted.

Certainly if everyone agreed the optimal solution for character actions getting on player nerves was : "always keep a strong meta-game in mind and have large amounts of OOC going on so that there will be no stepping on each other's toes" it would prevent this issue from coming up as it did--but I think doing so would've damaged what was, for all the participants, a hell of a game.

Also note: I think that our solution was compatible with immersive play (although certainly not for every immersive player): front-loading. I'll say more about that in another post.

Also Note: I checked with a highly experienced therapist I know and he told me that while there are no "wrong" actions in psychodrama, a person who was "playing out of character" (what this means is a little complex--and "playing out of character" would not apply in any sense to the person who was the subject of the psychodrama) would in his experince be corrected with a number of techniques by the facilitator. This was as I'd surmmised and, I think is related to the quality of an RPG-experience for a lot of people.

-Marco