Hey, that's -my- conflict!

[TonyLB]

I was playing a Stargate SG-1 derived setting in a FATE-derived ruleset, with my buds Danny (GMing), Jen, Eric, Melissa and Delenn.  Nice folks.  Not all on the same page with me in terms of what games are about, but nice folks, and I wasn't expecting perfect synergy.  I was playing the Jack O'Neill-esque character ... in fact, somebody who (IC) idolized and imitated O'Neill.  That was my (explicit) excuse for playing as close to Jack (who I like a lot) as possible.

We ended up on this world where people worshipped the Guawawawaould, but didn't know they worshipped them (because, like, their Gods had gone missing or something).  And there were all these times where people came to us asking for help, sorta Dogs-in-the-Vineyard-esque, like "Wow, our religion has all these funky, oppressive rules which we've totally lightened over the years, but there's still this stuff which might be about human sacrifice, and we're not quite sure where to go with it, and we're not quite sure what our higher ups have been doing, do you have any advice?"  I got a real kick out of those, so I got enthusiastic when folks came to me to ask those questions.  There was this whole angle of "They really need our help, but can we make them our allies, do we want to make them our allies?"

Other players (I think) read my enthusiasm, and started shunting people over to me.  And so I was building up this whole picture of the world, bit by bit, and ticking off lots of people and being generally arrogant and judgmental, and it was a ball.  Other people had their own things, and I shunted stuff their way as well.

Anyway, we came to the moment of crisis, where Danny revealed that, yeah, the religion was performing human sacrifices, but they had what they saw as a really good reason, in terms of holding their society together and not having outright war and all that.  So I stepped up and dumped my judgment on them:  "You're all scum, and idiots to boot, your Gods are not Gods, you're killing people for no good reason at all, and have been for centuries, and until you dismantle this religion I don't want anything to do with you, so shove off!"  Then I went off to get drunk and have a bar-brawl, in order to give other people time to deal with their conflicts before I ordered them off planet.  It was great!

But then, suddenly, everybody wanted in on that question!  They're all, like "You have to change your mind!" and "Were you even listening?" and like that.  Meanwhile I'm sitting there thinking to myself "Hey, I made my choice!  I'm done!  It's done!  It doesn't stop any of you from addressing your individual conflicts, so what's your beef?  You gave this question to me, and I've answered it!  Deal!"

When I think back on this, I get the definite sense that there was a gap in communication ... like, I thought I had been given the authority to actually resolve the conflict, bing, bang, boom, done and over.  It looked that way to me because nobody else was at all interested in putting in the effort to get entangled in the conflict.  So I wasn't peeved that they were saying "You should play your character differently," it was more generally that they were fine with me being in charge of the conflict until I actually did something they disagreed with, but then they felt totally free to override me, as if we were all equal peers in addressing it.  But we weren't peers!  I'd put in the effort.  I'd done the time.  I'd earned the right.  That's how I felt then, and it's how I feel now.  But I think that they felt that I'd been appointed ... I dunno ... ambassador from the group, and that I therefore had to take all their opinions into account.  Maybe?

So that's my big question:  Do players earn the right to more authority over conflicts than their fellows?  Is that a feasible way to play?  Not "Am I right, were they wrong?", because I figure we were all just on different pages.  But "Could you communicate the view I had, such that people would accept it?"

When I think about this, I see it a lot in other fiction.  "This task has fallen to you, and if you do not find the strength to do it nobody will," and all that.  It's classic.  I just can't quite see how to make it work smoothly in the context of an RPG.

[Andrew Morris]

Tony, are you looking for suggestions on mechanical ways to handle this, or social contract ways?

[TonyLB]

Yes.

I think that the difference between those two is purely a matter of which side of the "explicit/implicit" divide you put things.  My question is how to get it into System (in the Lumpley Principle sense).  So I'll take either mechanical or social approaches, it's all good.

[Andrew Morris]

Well, the first thing I'd try is talking to them about it, obviously. Tell them what you are looking for. If they say, "cool," then figure out a way to signal in the game that you're...uhm...staking on a conflict. Maybe...uh...put it on an index card. Like...that....other...game I've played. Maybe you know what I'm talking about. But in this one, anyone who wanted to have an affect on the way the conflict plays out has got to put their name on the card right from the get-go, or they can't whine about having input when it gets resolved.

Of course, if they look at you like you've grown another head, just deal with the fact that you're the odd man out, and try getting into the swing of their preferred style. Or don't play that game with them. Your call.

But, come to think of it, you've probably already thought of this, so I'm not sure if that's the sort of stuff you're looking for.

[Josh Roby]

My first response, Tony, goes along the lines of: "Gee, the Jack character came into the alien situation, applied his American standards to it and made a negative judgement, and then the rest of the group disagreed with him and tried to cajole him to change his mind?  ... That's every episode of Stargate I've ever seen."  Is it possible that the rest of the players thought they were playing to genre tropes?

Secondly, you saw the conflict as yours but the rest of the playgroup didn't.  This is pretty textbook divergence between player conceptions of the game.  Making this explicit, either through fiat ("this subplot is Tony's to resolve") or through mechanics ("Tony has bought this subplot with tokens") should be all you need to do.  To my eye, it's simply a matter of saying it out loud.

[Mike Holmes]

I was going to write Josh's paragraph near verbatim. In fact, if I were playing the O'Neill character, and the player with the Daniel character didn't come in with his cultural relativism, the player with the Carter character with the feminine sympathy (but strict deferral), and the player with the Teal'c character with the militant "we have to save these people from themselves" stance...if the other players hadn't reacted in order to complicate this, I would have thought something gravely wrong.

I mean...don't you want the decision to be complicated by the other PCs? Can't you sieze on this as a way for your character to get into some inter-personal conflicts with the other PCs?

I'm tempted to point out that this is just your garden-variety sim/nar incoherence going on. I do think that's the case. They're "interfering with your protagonism" because "my character would." But I don't think I even have to go that far in this case. Because in play like this when I've come across similar stuff, I just take the player input like GM input creating situation to respond to. I mean the bangs they're creating for you! Do I agree with my friend, or keep to my beliefs?

I understand that you built a sense of ownership about the particular sort of conflict. But, well, perhaps they're seeing how much fun you're having with it, and they want in on that, too. The neat thing about RPGs is that I find that when you share an issue it gets bigger to accomodate (sprouting it's own new issues), rather than being taken over by the participant.

So, yeah, like folks are saying, talk about it explicitly. If, in fact, they're trying to take away your ability to make choices here, then tell them that this is a problem. If, however, they're just making the problem more complicated, then try to work with them.

Lastly...if your character is the Col. O'Neil character then doesn't that include being the team leader? I mean, the funnest thing to do, to me, would be to take in all of their arguments, and then do like Jack does and make the unpopular decision anyhow, forcing them to swallow it (or you could choose to have your character turn some different leaf). That's not deprotagonizing their characters, their characters aren't in command and have already addressed the bang that you created for them by making a decision that their characters don't think is right (dealing with it by how they try to entreat your character). That's just creating more fun tension.

If it goes the usual rout, Jack will learn that there's some mitigating event, or get over-ruled by the General, and they'll be forced to help the people anyhow. Again, not deprotagonizing, because it's the command decision that's important. The new question will be how he reacts to the new authority. Do we see the "good soldier" Jack, or the "I tried to commit suicide so I don't answer to anyone" Jack?

Mike

[TonyLB]

I mean...don't you want the decision to be complicated by the other PCs? Can't you sieze on this as a way for your character to get into some inter-personal conflicts with the other PCs?

Actually, I was trying to prompt them to do that sort of stuff from the get-go.  I was doing all the "Screw these people if they don't value human life" stuff in the smaller circumstances leading up to the big scene.  I had those conversations with each of the other players.  I, in fact, said to people something very like "Okay, before we go talk to these head honchos, do any of you want to make an argument for the importance of their stupid, freaky alien ways?"  I was aware enough (even back then) that if anybody had jumped to argue, I would not have resolved the conflict without their input.  It was only when none of that player opposition materialized that I figured "Okay then, if nobody but me is interested in the conflict then it's mine to decide as I like."

So I'm not (I'm really not) saying that I had ownership from the word "go," and anybody else who wanted to have a say was out of luck.  I'm saying that at some point you say "Speak now or forever hold your peace," and those are people's choices, because if you don't then nothing ever happens.  Actually, though, I don't think that choice happens all at once:  I think people get a first inkling that the conflict is becoming Tony's, and then they have to wonder "Is Tony going to deal with this in a way I like?" and either get in on it or not.  And as they get more and more inklings, it becomes more clear (a) what the scope of the conflict is and (b) who's involved.  At every stage they get more explicit messages to either jump in or expect to have no say.  Somewhere along the path (near the end), they pass a point of no return:  a point where jumping in to take a hand in the conflict is no longer acceptable.  The only thing you get to do is to start dealing with new conflicts that arise as a consequence of how the old one resolved.

I mean ... on some levels this is what the phrase deus ex machina was invented to describe, wasn't it?  The person who comes in to resolve a conflict at the last minute, rather than building up their involvement over a period of time.

[Josh Roby]

So is it fair to say that you considered that conflict or subplot resolved, and they did not?  Is this not so much a conflict of ownership as it is pacing?  (Or is it maybe ownership of the pacing?)

[TonyLB]

Hrm.  I don't know.  Certainly the pacing enters into it, at least on my side.  Things need to get resolved, and that means (or does it?) that you can't leave the same question open forever to revision.

I'd sort of been wondering whether this is (in part) dealing with a macro-scale equivalent to IIEE.  Like this:

• Intent:  "The stakes of this are what sort of judgment gets handed down on these people's lives and actions."
• Initiation:  "Not-exactly-Jack has strong opinions on this.  I'm taking questions.  I want a part of this!"
• Execution:  "My judgment is, you people suck!"
• Effect:  "Wow ... they took that poorly.  Pass me another Zat-gun!"

I thought Execution had happened, and we should be on into Effect.  They seemed (always bearing in mind that I can only speak from second hand) to still think we were in Initiation.

[Brand_Robins]

Tony,

When I read your first post I saw one thing, now I'm seeing another. So I need a point (or three) of clarification because I'm slow:

Were the folks around the table arguing against your decision IC or OOC or part both? Were they trying to change your decision as part of their response to the effect, or were they trying to get you to pull it back so that it never happened?

I see things like this at my table sometimes, and while they can look alike they aren't. When I read your first post I thought what was going on was you made a hard character decision and then the other characters responded to it powerfully. But now I'm getting more of an image of everyone at the table trying to get you to suck back your decision rather than deal with the consequences of it.

So... um... more detail on that point, please?

[John Kim]

I mean...don't you want the decision to be complicated by the other PCs? Can't you sieze on this as a way for your character to get into some inter-personal conflicts with the other PCs?

Actually, I was trying to prompt them to do that sort of stuff from the get-go.  I was doing all the "Screw these people if they don't value human life" stuff in the smaller circumstances leading up to the big scene.  I had those conversations with each of the other players.  I, in fact, said to people something very like "Okay, before we go talk to these head honchos, do any of you want to make an argument for the importance of their stupid, freaky alien ways?"  I was aware enough (even back then) that if anybody had jumped to argue, I would not have resolved the conflict without their input.  It was only when none of that player opposition materialized that I figured "Okay then, if nobody but me is interested in the conflict then it's mine to decide as I like."

OK, here's my two cents.  From the original, it doesn't sound to me like much of an interesting conflict prior to your characters blow up.  Interesting conflict generally comes from strong choices.  As long as it's just the aliens saying "Well, we're looking for some advice on this, but we're not strongly committed either way and it's not urgent." -- well, I can easily see the other players not biting.  Your strong choice for your character's reaction is what started the real conflict.  It could also have been started by a strong choice by another character or a strong choice from some NPC.  But this seems like the start of a conflict rather than the end.  

But this is predicated on the idea that they want to have their characters go and change your character's mind.  If they wanted your character to have never made his strong choice in the first place, that would be a very different thing.  (A view that I hadn't considered until Brand's post.) 

[Brand_Robins]

Because my first post might have been to vague, let me give an actual example of something I watched happen in a game once (I wasn't playing, just observing).

There is an Exalted game going on. The PCs are Solars, a perfect and niche protected circle in which each PC has some pretty clearly grounded areas of responsibility and power. There is a war on, and the mortals looking to the PCs for help are being squashed by demons. Up come some Deathknights and offer to help the PCs by defending the poor innocent mortals while the Solar off and deal with the demon king.

The Zenith (the priest caste, in charge of morality) says that she cannot allow this. She will not work with the undead, and thinks it will damage the souls of the rest of the circle if they do so. This is her decision, by game logic, social contract, niche protection, and so and so on.

It leads to a 4 hour long argument. Not, mind you, 6 hours of intense play with everyone pushing their agenda. It was 4 hours of the other players, acting through their characters, trying to convince the Zenith's player that her call was wrong and to basically change her mind and let them do it because it's easier on them IC.

The Zeniths player says, over and over again OOCly, "Look, she isn't changing her mind. This has been coming for a while and you guys knew it. You just didn't bother to say anything until now." The argument goes on, and she says OOCly "Look, if you disagree that much, have your characters go around her! You can pat her on the head and say, "yes dear" and send the army out anyway. You can have the Night caste lead her off into a room and keep her out of the way while you broker the deal, you can do lots of stuff to still make it happen." The argument goes on, and finally she says, "Look, guys, roll dice! You have social charms on your sheets that will let you rewrite my characters brain so she'll say whatever you want. Use them, I'm telling you OOCly that it is okay!"

No one rolled dice, no one sidestepped the character and made powerful decisions back, no one admitted that it should have been obvious that when they asked her opinion that what she said would be all up in her hero-role to say. It went on, and on, and on because, essentially, the other players wanted for it to "never have happened" not by retconning and rolling it back – but by forcing the Zenith and her player (IC and OOC) to say that it was the wrong decision and she should never have made it. It wasn't argument to drive story, it wasn't even argument to have good conflict, it was argument at the IC level to make the effect have never happened in the first place.

(Which, so far as I can tell, cannot possibly work.)

[TonyLB]

Were the folks around the table arguing against your decision IC or OOC or part both? Were they trying to change your decision as part of their response to the effect, or were they trying to get you to pull it back so that it never happened?

Oh, sorry!  I see now how I was unclear.  It was that second thing, where they said "No, you can't do that, do something else instead."

But I think I also agree with John, that until somebody threw something up that the players really objected to, they didn't engage with the conflict.  So on some level, maybe the problem is that they got ambushed by the objectionable thing without feeling that they'd had any time to conflict against it, so they had to dump all their conflict in quickly the moment they realized what outcomes were actually possible (i.e. when I made my statement).  It's already too late IC, so they naturally shift to OOC play.

That helps me have a lot more sympathy for them.  If I'd been being pushed toward a choice between killing NPC#1 and NPC#2, and I made the choice to kill a player character then people would have good reason to say "Hey, I would have objected earlier if I knew that there was a chance that my character would be killed!  You can't ambush me like that!"

I've actually seen the same thing in Dogs in the Vineyard play, because a conflict has two outcomes:  the Stakes (which everyone knows up front, when they decide whether or not to be involved) and the Fallout (which only develops during play).  I had a game where the following exchange (don't remember the players, sorry) occurred:

PC#1:  Stakes for this conflict are "Does he take back what he just said?"
PC#2:  I got no horse in that race.  Count me out.
PC#1:  Okay!  I pull my gun and shoot him in the kneecap.  "Take it back!" I order.
PC#2:  Oh hell no!  You can't do that!  I need to be in the conflict, NOW.

In the light of what people have said, I think that these both follow the same pattern:  People think they understand the possible outcomes of the conflicts, and aren't interested ... then they suddenly come face to face with a different range of "what might happen" and they want in, all at once.

[Josh Roby]

Yeah, what John said.  Consider that most of these shows are not about the main characters interacting with the aliens.  It's about the main characters interacting with each other, with the aliens as some colorful and occasionally provocative backdrop.  The real conflict and grist of the show doesn't start when the aliens ask the question, but when Jack/Chrighton/Riker/Adama give their answer, and the other characters can respond.  I mean, look at Battlestar Galactica (we should look at BSG more often).  The Cylons aren't there as opposition.  They're barely there as antagonists.  The only real function that the Cylons serve is ratcheting up the pressure on the main characters' interactions.

Tony, you mention that you gave the other players an opportunity in a no-pressure, conversational milleu to have their characters argues with your character.  Had your character already taken his stand in a public and blatant way?  Was there potential for conflict in that conversation?  In other words, did they have a chance to display their character's point of view through a conflict, rather than just extemporaneously explaining it top to bottom?

[TonyLB]

Had your character already taken his stand in a public and blatant way?  Was there potential for conflict in that conversation?

I thought I had, but that's unfortunately in the fuzzy never-land of what I remember feeling rather than any memory I have of my specific words.  I can't know for certain (unless maybe one of the other participants remembers the session and posts about it here) whether I'd communicated it clearly.