Motivations...

[Alan]

I would like you to put forward a listing of five or six of the "substantial" number of games that portray the characters as working at cross purposes.

The Riddle of Steel
Sorcerer
Elfs
Universalis
My Life with Master
Dust Devils
Amber
Trollbabe

The above are games that don't require the characters to cooperate - and in which I've either experienced, or heard reported, strong examples of character's working at cross-purposes.  (Try searching "blood opera"  on the Forge for extreme exampls.)

Also, I recall many old AD&De1 games that involved characters working counter to each other.   Any game system can be drifted to support player character conflict, I think.

Now on the other hand, no game lasts long if _players_ don't cooperate.  This is one reason why the separation of character and player is important.

[joshua neff]

I would like you to put forward a listing of five or six of the "substantial" number of games that portray the characters as working at cross purposes.

I can chime in here with personal gaming experiences. Let's see...

1) The first (& so far only) Dust Devils game I played. Each PC was at odds with every other PC. One PC, for example, was intent on arresting another PC. And one PC was shot in the stomach with a shotgun by another PC.

2) Everytime I've played My Life With Master, the PC minions have worked against each other. The PCs also rarely interacted with each other.

3) The last Sorcerer game I ran, the 3 PCs were frequently off doing their own things & didn't interact much. When they did, it was mostly in an antagonistic way. The climax of the game was a big battle between the PCs & their demons, with one PC banishing another PC's demon.

4) In the Sorcerer game I'm currently playing in, my PC is being hunted by another PC. The hunter plans on killing my PC--I know this, but the PC doesn't. Meanwhile, the third PC is dealing with a different situation that doesn't involve the other PCs (so far) & the third PC hasn't met the other PCs. No characters are working together here.

Now, none of these games have rules that push PC antagonism, but neither do the rules push for teamwork between PCs. And when I've run these games, I've stressed the point that the players shouldn't feel obligated to have their characters work together--or even meet, necessarily. Regardless of whether the PCs meet or not, regardless of whether the PCs "team up" or not, everyone at the table is committed to making sure every player has fun.

EDIT: After reading Alan's post, I remembered the Elfs game I played at GenCon a couple of years ago. That one goes on the list, too, as the PCs were usually trying to screw each other over.

[M. J. Young]

I would like you to put forward a listing of five or six of the "substantial" number of games that portray the characters as working at cross purposes. I am aware that players can and often do, but I would prefer that the game have design elements that actively aid or abet this.

To the wonderful lists already presented, let me add two games.

Multiverser doesn't care one whit whether player characters work together or not; it's fine if they do, but in general the game tends to pull them apart and send them on separate adventures more often than not, because the players and their characters are usually interested in different things anyway. It works fine, and I run it all the time and play it when I can find someone else to run it.

Legends of Alyria probably trumps this. The initial phase of the game is not exactly character creation; it's storymap creation. During this phase, you identify a number of characters who are going to be important to the story that is about to be created, and their relationships to each other and to the core conflict of the story. All major heroes and villains should be on this storymap. From there you start fleshing out those characters with scores, nuances, values, so they become playable. Then you decide which player will take which character. A referee/GM is useful but not necessary to play. From the start of play, the players are all operating characters whose complex web of connections includes that some are enemies. If there are NPCs, they are minor roles, played by whoever thinks they're necessary at the moment. At no time is there a "party". After all, what better way to bring two characters together than the desire to kill each other?

As far as party mentality, it's been breaking down from long before games like Multiverser and Sorcerer--the Storyteller system LARPS are generally not at all party-driven, and the tabletop versions don't reflect much in this regard, either.

I'm not saying games that encourage party cohesion are bad; all that's been said here is that this concept is becoming less and less important in role playing games generally.

--M. J. Young

[RDU Neil]

Now this is purely IMO... but damn... I'm quite disturbed by these last few posts.  

Is it really true that there are games that people describe as "wonderful" that consist of solopsistic role playing that not only allows for, but encourages competitive, back stabbing, one-up-manship rather than cooperative action and other supportive behaviors?

I mean, I know this stuff exists... I know Amber... but I'm appalled that this is the kind of game that is being encouraged as good in any way... "indie" or otherwise cutting edge.


This seems to say, "Lets take a group of people who already tend to be socially immature and even inept, angst filled introverts, and instead of challenging them to interact in a positive, goal oriented, cooperative manner, we'll instead indulge in what I've only witnessed as RPG masturbation scenarios that acknowledge other players and characters as an audience at best, opponents at worst."

THIS is supposed to be a GOOD thing?

I guess I'm an old fogey, but I can't imagine building a rapport among players... a sense of belonging... a functional, long lasting social structure of ANY kind in such an environment.  Even good friends would quickly feel resentment and anger when every move they/their character make/s is challenged, undermined and thwarted.  It's a return to junior high politics!

I know you say you should separate the player from the character, but that is problematic at best.  Part of playing RPGs is to invest emotional attachment to characters and the imaginary world they inhabit.  It is cooperative story telling, and no GM wants players without any vested, emotional interest in the game.  Without that you might as well be playing Parchese.  

The old "My character Rex just fucked you over six ways from Sunday, but hey Bill, I'M still really your friend!" is just bull.  Competition and intra-group conflict is natural... but to encourage and suggest it is the new, best, appropriate way to game is just sick.

I encourage my players to break out of their shell... not reinforce it!

[Doctor Xero]

Personally, as a game master I mislike running campaigns in which players and/or
player-characters operate at cross-purposes.  Inter-PC conflict is fine -- IF and ONLY IF
~all~ players are comfortable with this (and many are not) -- but esprit de corps and
team tend to make for a better campaign in my opinion.  When I run a campaign in a
system which encourages PC disharmony, I alter that system to reflect my personal
tastes in this matter.  More importantly, a team focus avoids my having to deal with the
"nerd machismo" of players who romanticize lone wolf fractiousness and who use the
games as compensatory testosterone surrogates, in my experience.  (YMMV -- Your
Mileage May Vary -- so take this as simply personal experience and not as a definitive
generalization for everyone.)

HOWEVER . . .

ross_winn wrote Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:49 am:
>  However would it be better to codify a mechanic to reinforce these ideas?
> Should aspects of each motivation be parameters or attributes of a system?

While I don't fully agree with Ross' quantification of motivations schema, overall I
think it's a good question, and I'd love to read the thoughts of others on this matter.

Some games implant competition (the reverse of team motivation) within their character
archetypes, such as World of Darkness with its clan/kithain/tradition wars and rivalry.
Someone has already mentioned how AD-&-D uses classes to reinforce the importance
of group intradependence.

Heroic motivation seems to be encouraged almost exclusively through character
conception rules, whether it be Champion's experience point penalties for violation
of character conception or AD-&-D's penalties for violation of alignment.

I'm not certain how survival motivation could relate to game system.  Why would anyone
play a PC in a game whose first act is to kill himself?  (unless it were a game involving
supernatural afterlife or such)  Although I have some vague memory of a freeware game
in which PCs compete to see who could commit suicide first . . . ?

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

I have to agree with RDU Neil about the destructiveness of games which encourage
backstabbing.  I've seen seven gaming groups ruined by players who used these games
as excuses for ill treatment of friends camoflauged as friendly rivalry -- usually more out
of university stress than any conscious malice, but regardless the reason, the damage
remained irreversible.

On the other hand, light hazing (teasing, raillery, friendly competition) is a tried-and-true
form of male bonding and female bonding in Anglo-European cultures, including  the
United States.  I think the difference between party disunity and genuinely friendly rivalry
can be blurry indeed.

This all gets down to the ages-old Catharsis vs. Catalyst argument in some ways (unless
someone wants to trod out that tired old allegation that the ability to quarrel violently in
character without taking it personally is a sign of a "manly" "maturity"?).  If people would
like to continue discussing the catharsis vs. catalyst argument or the value of intra-party
disharmony or of hazing as bonding, perhaps that would make a valuable new thread in
this forum?

(Although I ~still~ find nerd machismo among gamers annoying!)

Doctor Xero

[Bankuei]

Hi Neil,

I think perhaps you're reading a bit much into what these folks are saying.  In my experience, many of these games run fine without the "party mentality", but do not have to break down into serious character vs. character conflict.

Just because the characters don't know each other(really), and aren't working together, does not mean they will be at each other's throats.  They may simply be trying to keep each other out of the way, or enlist their aid for short term assistance while achieving their goals.

Second, I think you're also really underestimating the potential maturity levels of players out there.  I have met immature players who respond in the fashion you mention, I've also met very mature players who do not.  That may or may not be your experience, but rest assured, there are players out there who do not "carry" emotional weight of grudges and vendettas, anymore than actors to their characters.

Chris

[Valamir]

Wow, Neil.

I don't even know how to begin replying to your post.

If you're playing with  "socially immature and even inept, angst filled introverts" you need to find a new group of gamers.  Frankly I find this stereotype to be highly insulting.  All the more so because it isn't really true, and certainly not reflective of any of the people from this forum I've had the pleasure to game with.  The people I've met from the Forge are some of the most extroverted, socially well adjusted, and completely comfortable-with-themselves folks around.  

Also where does "working at cross purposes" get translated to "backstabbing asshole"?

Seems to me you are HIGHLY confusing the desires of the characters with the desires of the players.  It is perfectly possible for your character to want to betray mine, for my character to not want to be betrayed, but for me as a player to absolutely want you as a player to play out your characters betrayal.  I may play my character as outraged and driven for revenge, while simultaneously enjoying the hell of it as a player and congratulating you for turning the knife so brutally.

Mistaking the "desires" of a piece of paper for what real living breathing people want is a huge mistake.

Its comments like those that for me highlight why I think Ross's goals for the thread are quite misguided.

Ross has asked that we not discuss the goals of the player in this thread.
Out of respect for that desire I shall avoid the enormous post on the subject I'd like to make.  

But for the record.  IMO, any attempt to define "character goals" that does not account for "player goals" is a complete wrong direction to go.  I am absolutely certain that whatever game design goal you hope to accomplish by focusing on character goals will fail miserably unless you first focus on player goals.

After all:

"My character wants" should translate directly as "I the player want my character to want".  If not...very very bad.

[clehrich]

[X-posted with Ralph and Chris (Bankuei)]

I just don't see this sort of conflict and competition as necessarily having anything to do with machismo, stress, unhealthiness, or anything of the sort.  Nobody's saying that playing a game this way is "the right" way to play, but it can be fun -- and not just for maladjusted males.  I mean, a lot of RPG's work to militate against such intra-group competition, and that used to be claimed a lot as one of the things that made all RPG's special and wonderful: they weren't like other games that have win/lose conditions.  But why can't RPG's have such conditions?  Can't it be fun to win?  Or to lose?  Rewarding backstabbing in the sense of out-and-out treachery is one thing, but if everyone in the game is a creepy, twisted freak, and one of them manages to manipulate another into getting himself eaten by something really dreadful, can't that be a blast for everyone?  

I think the most fun I ever had in a CoC campaign was when another player's PC really, really screwed up his SAN rolls and ended up deciding that it would be a good thing if Great Cthulhu came and devoured the earth.  The GM was into "take you into another room"-style gaming, so we didn't know this, although we knew the PC's behavior was getting a little peculiar (panting, gibbering a bit, laughing out of context); we just figured he was pushing the SAN envelope.  When he actually shot my character and used his bloody body as a sacrifice to Cthluhu, resulting in a wild gunfight involving tentacles, that was a blast.  I got to play an evil minion for the duration of the long climax session, and everyone fired off lots of guns, screamed, moaned, got eaten, ate others (in my case, anyway), and much fun was had by all.  Does this make us maladjusted screwups?

Sorry, but I just don't think aesthetic judgment-calls have anything to do with this.  Haven't you ever enjoyed winning a game of, say, chess?  You know, where you deviously manipulate the other guy, jump on his failings, and soundly trounce him?  One of the great things about this sort of RPG, in fact, is that you get to gloat, and the other guy gets to chime in and make the gloating more fun.

Chris Lehrich

[Doctor Xero]

Hmmm, it looks as though this thread is about player motivations more than about game
system effects on character motivations.

clehrich wrote Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:02 pm:
> Rewarding backstabbing in the sense of out-and-out treachery is one thing, but if
> everyone in the game is a creepy, twisted freak, and one of them manages to manipulate
> another into getting himself eaten by something really dreadful, can't that be a blast
> for everyone?

Chris, I honestly think two different discussions are going on right now (although neither
of them deals with Ross' original query) and they're intersecting awkwardly.

One discussion involves the notion that RPGs can still be fun for everyone even when
they involve PC intrigue, PC competition or rivalry, and/or sustained PC conflict.  I would
put forth that this is true when such PC behavior is within the parameters of accepted
behavior for the gaming group involved.

To play off your chess example: I've known groups where cheating at chess (e.g. moving
pieces when your opponent's back is turned) were well within the parameters of accepted
behavior in that group, and so no one became angry when it was done to him or her since
it was part of the group norm but even laughed about it (not unlike the joys of gloating
you mention at the end of your post).  Often the game system will tell players ahead of time
whether this is assumed to be acceptable, such as World of Darkness games, although some
game systems such as AD-&-D leave it up to the individual playing group.

The other discussion involves the notion that gaming groups can be ruined when certain
players decide to engage in sneaky PC behavior or outright PC treachery while playing in a
gaming group where such PC behavior violates accepted parameters of group behavior.
I've seen this happen more than once when a new player is brought into an intimate social
group which happens to game (often a boyfriend or girlfriend) or when the gamers are more
fellow game hobbyists than actual friends.

The problem is that many people who enjoy cheating even when in groups where cheating is
against the spirit of the group or who enjoy using their skill at gaming to bully other people
in an environment which "doesn't count in the real world" usually defend their actions by
insisting that their own willingness to cheat and the willingness of other people to react to
their bullying not with annoyance but "taking it like a man" or "taking it like an adult", imposing
no repercussions for the cheater/bully and no complaints, are all signs of maturity, mental health,
and manliness.  After a while, these arguments become overused to the point of triteness.

After all, we live in a country where the term "mature film" usually refers not to sophisticated
subject matter  but to soft-core pornography.  <shrug>  An annoying misuse of words, IMHO.
So referring to mature vs. immature players in such matters as the worth of party disunity
becomes tainted unless we are careful with our words.

Nerd machismo and its like refers to people suffering from the "badass" syndrome, people who
use games to pretend to a machismo they lack in real life and then gloating like playground
bullies.  From your comments, I suspect you'd be surprised how many people do this in gaming
circles.  They are a frustrating lot, often destroying entire gaming groups because, in the
United States, aspersions against a person's masculinity or maturity are powerful hot buttons,
particularly among the high school and college crowd, and these hot buttons camoflauge the real
problem: the accidental inclusion of a bully in the gaming group.

I think it might be helpful if we distinguish between these two lines of discussion.  At least, that's
my personal opinion, and I hope it helps this discussion overall.

Doctor Xero

[RDU Neil]

I did state that this was all IMO.  And to Lehric's post about CoC... hey, that is just good role playing in a world where a dark and evil element is expected to win out.  Sure, it could have been fun... once.

How the heck do you maintain a true campaign like that?  My experience is much more like Doctor Xero's.  Loved the phrase

the
"nerd machismo" of players who romanticize lone wolf fractiousness and who use the
games as compensatory testosterone surrogates,

This is so true, and something I assiduously avoid.

The fact is, my games happen to have quite a group of mature gamers, but they all admit to the cathartic elements of gaming, and some refuse to ever play a character who is evil or mean (unless something in the game makes them that way, and then that evil must end badly for a sense of harmony to reinstate itself).  These guys put a great deal of themselves into the characters, and if the character fails, THEY fail.   I try to manage this, as the gaming world requires failure to be believable, but I would never allow that failure to be at the hands of another player who was purposely trying to harm/hinder or otherwise "beat" another player.  Good role playing can reward a player who acts against their own characters best interest, because it is "in character" but I will not abide a player whose "in character actions" are to screw over the others.  I simply do not want that dynamic to poison the player friendships.  Any game where the players were just "acting" and not "role playing" well... that isnt' a game for me.  

My one experience with this solopsistic kind of play style was a WW/Changeling game.  I saw eight people come together and NEVER interact.  Each one had their own "thing" that they were doing, and essentially ignored the others, or tried to talk over them... and the GM never really got any kind of plot or story going, because the players stayed "in character" and there was rarely any reason any of these characters would care to be around each other.  

What the hell kind of game is that?  If I want to be alone in a room of people who could care less that I'm around, I'll go to the local bar.  RPGs are social events... and to have a game system turn that into an episode of Survivor (a perfect example of the kind degredation of society that I feel these games represent) well, no thanks.  

And to Lehric's question... yeah I play games like Chess, or Magic... and I play to win... but that is exactly NOT what I want from an RPG.  I can't even conceive of an RPG as a Zero-Sum Game.  It is absolutely defined (for me) as a cooerative, win-win interaction.   Apples and oranges.

[Gordon C. Landis]

(quoted to give context to me reply - I don't think I distort anything by doing so, but if I do, appologies)

I saw eight people come together and NEVER interact.  Each one had their own "thing" that they were doing, and essentially ignored the others, or tried to talk over them... and the GM never really got any kind of plot or story going, because the players stayed "in character" and there was rarely any reason any of these characters would care to be around each other.  

What the hell kind of game is that?  If I want to be alone in a room of people who could care less that I'm around, I'll go to the local bar.  RPGs are social events...

Hey Neil -

No one here is (I think) claiming that RPGs aren't social events.  The point is that just becuase the CHARACTERS aren't interacting doesn't mean that the PLAYERS aren't.  In fact, it becomes even more important that one player care about what another is up to if the characters aren't together, since it is ONLY by caring about what's going on for that other player that you're connected to the imagined world.

So you're 100% correct - the real people playing the game (players, GM, whatever roles exist) must interact.  And be happy about that interaction, so that the goal of a fun game is being satisfied.  But that does not *neccessarily* mean the the characters have to interact, frequently or even at all.  And if they do interact, that that interaction can be antagonistic, cooperative, a combination or etc. - as long as the players see it as shared creation of a fun experience.

So the PLAYERS need a reason to work within a "team" framework, but the characters - not so much.  Though that often works well for some people and some goals, it ain't always the best for all people or all goals.

Hope that makes sense,

Gordon

EDIT to add - I find this a VERY important point, because where we have to look to see if that "rapport among players - sense of belonging - functional, long lasting social structure" exists or not is with the players, entirely.  I've been in more than one game where the characters are all-so-happily working together and striving for their goals, but the players were pissed with each other.  They were too nice to take it out on each other via their characters, but the truth was, the game wasn't working.  And looking at the characters would tell us nothing about that.

[Valamir]

The point is that just becuase the CHARACTERS aren't interacting doesn't mean that the PLAYERS aren't. In fact, it becomes even more important that one player care about what another is up to if the characters aren't together, since it is ONLY by caring about what's going on for that other player that you're connected to the imagined world.

Carve this one in stone people.

What the characters are doing in the game is completely secondary to what the players are doing.

It is entirely possible to have characters all going their seperate ways, plotting against each other, ignoring each other, paths crossing from time to time, etc.  while SIMULTANEOUSLY having all of the players TOTALLY engaged in every scene regardless of their own characters presence in it.  It is the *players* committment to each other that is important, not the characters committment.

It is entirely possible for a player to be thoroughly enjoying watching scenes between characters that his character doesn't even know.  No, not just "possible", common, and something that should be encouraged.

That's why I have a problem with Ross's question at the beginning of the thread.  The goal should be to find ways to encourage the players committment to each other in the game.  Trying to do that by adding mechanics to encourage the character's committment to the game is IMO completely backwards.


And Ross, I do apologize for participating in the derailing of your issue.  If you find my comments to be distinctly unhelpful to you, I am happy to withdraw.

[M. J. Young]

Is it really true that there are games that people describe as "wonderful" that consist of solopsistic role playing that not only allows for, but encourages competitive, back stabbing, one-up-manship rather than cooperative action and other supportive behaviors?

Personally, as a game master I mislike running campaigns in which players and/or player-characters operate at cross-purposes. Inter-PC conflict is fine -- IF and ONLY IF ~all~ players are comfortable with this (and many are not) -- but esprit de corps and team tend to make for a better campaign in my opinion.

Well, a lot of people have jumped on this; but none have said quite what I want to say.

You've misunderstood the core objective of a game like Alyria; you've also misunderstood the roles of the participants in all role playing games, by overlooking one of them in most role playing games.

Obviously, if the players' characters are going to overcome obstacles, there have to be obstacles; if they're going to defeat enemies, there have to be enemies. Someone has to provide the obstacles and play the enemies. Oh, but that's the referee's job. Ah. Why? Is it a rule, then, that the referee always loses? No, the referee isn't losing; it's part of his job to make sure the players have a good time by providing opponents they can defeat. He didn't lose, because they're not playing against him. No?

Hackmaster, as written, makes it very clear that the players are playing against the referee. There are rules in the book which declare that the players can penalize the referee if he violates the rules in the book. There are strictures on what he is allowed to throw at the players. What is interesting is that many of those who play this game think this is what AD&D was, brought into sharp focus: him against us, us against him. The referee is already one of the players. If he's not allowed to win, then the game is rigged; if he is allowed to win, then the players lose.

Here's an anecdotal digression. One of the episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation focused on some researcher wanting to reverse engineer Data to build more of him. He had arranged things such that Data would be transferred to his command; Data responded by attempting to resign from Star Fleet. The researcher argued that Data was not a crew member but a piece of equipment, and therefore did not have the right either to resign or to refuse to comply with the orders. In order to determine this, there was a trial. Captain Picard defended Data. Commander Riker was assigned the task of prosecuting, of proving that Data should not be accorded the rights of a human crew member. He was informed that he had to do this, and he'd better do a good job, or the JAG office would summarily decide in favor of the researcher. When the trial was over, and the judge decided that Data had the right to resign, Data thanked Riker. Why? Because the piece needed a villain for the hero to triumph, and Riker was willing to play that villain.

The goal in a game like Legends of Alyria is to create great stories. Rather than say, O.K., all the players will play these heroes and the referee will play all the villains that we're going to defeat, the game says everyone is going to pick a character, whether hero or villain, sidekick or caught in the middle, and we're all going to work together to create a great story.

In Alyria, your character is not your avatar; he's your means of expression. Through the character, you have the ability to change the form of the game world, the content of the shared imaginary space. By playing a great villain, the player can make a greater story.

In most games, we sort of accept that it's the referee's job to make sure that everyone has a good time. In Legends of Alyria, it specifically states as the primary rule of the game that it is everyone's job to make sure that everyone else has a good time. The players are working together to make a great story, by taking characters who will work against each other and trying to bring this to a conclusion that makes a significant statement. Each has a tool to use to create this story; some are villains, some are heroes. Any might at some point switch sides, if that's what the story needs--fallen heroes and repentant villains make great stories.

The players are not working against each other; they're working together to control a collection of characters whose personal conflicts are the stuff of the story.

Sure, I like games in which player characters all work together against some obstacle that the referee has created; but to say that this is an essential element of role playing is to miss the point.

I also like the campaign, because I hate to end a character's meaningful existence (I've got characters I haven't played in most of twenty years for whom I'm still waiting to find out what happens next). That doesn't mean that mini campaigns and one-shots aren't great role playing games. Alyria isn't designed for you to take a character as yours (your avatar) for thirty years; it's designed for you to take a character as yours (your means of expression) for three or four sessions, in which you'll create one legendary story about one group of characters, and then you'll move on to create a new set of characters with which to create a different legend.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

[Alan]

Is it really true that there are games that people describe as "wonderful" that consist of solopsistic role playing that not only allows for, but encourages competitive, back stabbing, one-up-manship rather than cooperative action and other supportive behaviors?

Let me restate my points more clearly:

1) The games I gave as examples all require _player_ cooperation (as does all good RPG play).  In fact, I've experience more _player_ cooperation in these games than many others.  

2) Likewise these games do not require _character_ cooperation.  Whether the character's work together, at separate agendas, or conflict is neither rewarded, encouraged, nor discouraged by the game system.   (Alyria may be an exception - I haven't played it.)

3) In these games, I've never experienced any deceit between _players_ at the table.  Any time characters are in conflict, it is played with the full knowledge - sometimes the encouragement - of other players.

My whole point in bringing up such examples is that a discussion of character motivations must first acknowledge that they can be separate from _player_ motivations.  The purpose of making that distinction is to point out that player motivations are ultimately more important to play.