Motivations...

[RDU Neil]

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

Actually, yes.   You almost lost me with the Star Trek anecdote.  (A have an adverse reaction to anyone using Trek as an example of something good...) but the rest was very clear... and very interesting.  It certainly sounds more positive and cooperative than Amber or the WW debacle I've experienced in the past.  This also explains the first of Kim's divisions... the Cooperative Storytelling mode... which is what I thought I was doing all along, but this takes it to the true extreme... a story being created for a non-existent reader, by a collection of equal stature authors (the players.)  

I honestly don't know if such a game would  work with anyone in my group.  It is a vastly different style than we've ever played... though I do see that we've integrated certain elements.  (Characters getting to set scenes or fill in backstory with only minimal guidance by the GM)  I just still see too much competitiveness in my group, that each person would think that their idea about where the story should go is better than the others, and would not cooperate.  This model really requires that the others actively listen to each player in turn... and I know that my guys are often much to eager to cut in and give their own .2 cents worth.  It would be a real struggle.

Thanks for the explanation, though.

[Doctor Xero]

Hackmaster, as written, makes it very clear that the players are playing against the referee.

The goal in a game like Legends of Alyria is to create great stories.

M.J., you've nicely encapsulated why I find no joy nor pleasure in playing the
Hackmaster game, a system which encourages ruthless competition over cooperation
between gamers.  Based on your description of Legends of Alyria, I will probably
avoid that game as well.

I personally dislike RPGs which treat PCs as tools rather than as characters, but
that is a personal taste.

you've also misunderstood the roles of the participants in all role playing games, by overlooking one of them in most role playing games.

What I think has been forgotten here is that there is only true goal in any RPG experience :
for everyone to have fun.
(Enjoyment -- what  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls "flow" -- is also what motivates
designing one's own RPGs or participating in forums even when they become intense.)

That fun may involve players using their PCs as tools to attack each other, that
fun may involve players using PCs as characters through which to enjoy a game
master's world, that fun may involve players using PCs to craft a story for an audience
which is no one but themselves . . .  I have known more than one group of players
for whom fun involved using their PCs as a psychodelic focus when they gathered
to get stoned out of their gourds on various psychopharmaceuticals.

Excluding obvious ethical and legal extremes, the purpose of playing in an RPG is
to have fun.

I do not think that this purpose is served by stating that a specific approach to RPG
experiences is superior or more mature or suggesting that a particular approach
is followed only by those who misunderstand the roles of the participants in all role
playing games.  I don't see how that tack works toward that purpose of fun.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

Hackmaster, as written, makes it very clear that the players are playing against the referee.

In the Actual Play forum, Coxcomb wrote

In sports and other competitive pursuits, highs always come at the expense of someone else. In an RPG everybody can share the highs together.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9556

I agree with coxcomb -- and this also explains why I mislike RPGs such as Hackmaster
(and from M.J.'s description, probably Legends of Alyria).  These games require that the
gaming enjoyment come at the expense of someone else.  In competition, no other
possibility exists because you can not win unless someone else loses in a competition
(or comes in second place or third place, which amounts to losing at reaching first
place).

There are experiences, such as chess and soccer and art contests and even romance
(unless you're into polyamory), in which there will be wins and losses.  This doesn't
mean that all experiences must function that way; it doesn't mean that RPGs must
function that way.

When I want win/lose competition, I play chess or soccer or enter a contest or vie for
a romantic partner -- I don't RPG.  RPGs are one of the few group adventures which
can transcend win/loss outcomes.

Doctor Xero

[Christopher Kubasik]

Dr. Xero,

I'm baffled.  In his post on Alyria, M.J. Young wrote: "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."

He explicitely said the the game states taht the primary rule of the game is to make sure everyone else has a good time.

In other words, fun.

Several basic tenents are on the table:

In the most common style of RPG, the GM provides obstacles for the Players.  Is this some sort of torment in your view?

If not, then why can't the Players step up into the roles of creating obstacles for each other's *characters* as well as the GM?

If the group's definition of fun is, "We're all here making a story together," and they create charcters who are at a cross purpose (which is required to make a story, then the players are working together while the characters are working at a cross purpose.

Remember that in such a case, whether a character lives, dies, is stabbed in the back or lied to a crucial juncture.  Since all those elements help make a great story (Poetics: revelations and reversals) everyone at the table, with the fun condition of helping each other make a great story, is having a great time, even if all the charcters are as dead as the court of Denmark in Hamlet by the time it's all over.

Keep in mind that in such game play there are seldom secrets between the players, there's a lot of kibitzing about what might happen next (with the playing out of the scene revealing what actually happened), and there's actually very little competition between players -- if at all.  They are competing as a group to create a cool story.

I repeat: the characters are competing within the story, the players are cooperating to create the story.  (BTW, the slightly snarky split you make between "characters" and "tools" in such situations suggests -- you've never heard of actors working together to build a scene in a play or movie?  Is this true?)

The way you keep sweeping this big paintbrush around claiming that all games of this style are some sort of pathological disfunction, in the fact of everyone else saying, "no, I play this way, and what you're describing isn't the way it goes down," might suggest there are ways and methods of playing that, while you might not like them, you're not quite grokking at this moment.

You might want to take a step back and consider there's something here you're just not getting yet.

Christopher

[standard disclaimer: all talk of different styles of play here means different, not better or "mature"]

[Doctor Xero]

The way you keep sweeping this big paintbrush around claiming that all games

Christopher, your reaction makes no sense to me because it doesn't seem to have
anything to do with anything I had posted on this topic.

Re-read my previous posts: in each, I make it clear that I am sharing my personal
perspective, not a universal dictate, and defending it as one of several legitimate
perspectives.

I personally dislike RPGs which treat PCs as tools rather than as characters, but
that is a personal taste.

this also explains why I mislike RPGs such as Hackmaster

I do not think that this purpose is served by stating that a specific approach to RPG
experiences is superior or more mature or suggesting that a particular approach
is followed only by those who misunderstand the roles of the participants in all role
playing games.  I don't see how that tack works toward that purpose of fun.

I went out of my way to make it clear that I was stating personal interests and that
I was simply defending the tastes of those of us who prefer cooperative PC play to
competitive PC play.  I don't understand how that could be misinterpretted.

As for acting: I was a professional film and television actor for a while, and I can assure
you that professional acting is definitely a cut-throat business!  Anyone who tells you
otherwise has never been in the Industry.  I've also been involved in amateur theatre
productions, and the cooperative aspects do not negate the power of the director whose
word is final and of a script which can be altered only by director or writer but never by
the actor unless he/she is given permission, so acting doesn't really parallel the sort
of gaming experience about which you're writing.  (Unless there are scripted RPGs?)

I have made no statement that anyone is dysfunctional or less mature or less skilled
or less cooperative for enjoying other approaches.  I write to prove that the approach
that a number of us prefer, with cooperative PCs the norm in that approach, is just as
functional, mature, skilled, and cooperative as the other approaches mentioned in this
thread.

Doctor Xero

[greyorm]

What I'm surprised no one has brought up yet in response to the comments about competition between players being unhealthy, masochistic aggression is...well, other (non-RPG) games.

Chess, for example? Or any family-oriented game on the market: Monopoly, Chutes & Ladders, RISK, Scrabble, Trivia Pursuit, Clue, Boggle, etc? Or something closer to home: how about wargaming (from which RPGs were birthed)? Or CCGs (Magic, Pokemon, etc.)?

I mean, are those individuals so oppossed to character-conflict in RPGs really and truly suggesting that the above named games are contributing to social dysfunction and immaturity, that such games are nothing more than "competitive, back stabbing, one-up-manship"?

And suggesting that when we have family game night here at my house, we are failing to "build a rapport among players... a sense of belonging... a functional, long lasting social structure of ANY kind." In other words, playing games together is really tearing our family apart.

That family game night, because the games we play do not promote play in a "cooperative manner," is "disturbing"?

Based on the reasons given for why RPGs which feature competition are bad, playing normal, regular board games would have to be screwing up everyone who plays them. Somehow, I find all that to be...just weird.

Logically extrapolated, the criticisms just don't make any sense.

[Christopher Kubasik]

I wish I could say something in reply...

but I can't.

Good luck all.

Christopher

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hey Doc Xero,

Team play, individual play, PCs together, PCs apart - either, all, and many variations can be functional, mature, skilled and cooperative.  With the possible exception of Neil, I think we can all agree on this - and I think (reading between the lines - correct me if I'm wrong, Neil) Neil is more concerened with the *practical* difficulty of getting *his particular group* to be functional etc. in a non-PC-team environment than he is about any absolute, philosophical impossibility.

What's wierd (and what prompted Christopher to post, I'd guess) is that you draw a connection between Legends of Alyria and Hackmaster, in terms of cut-throat competition.  Putting aside for the moment the issue of people who actually ENJOY Hackmaster - who see that competition as a subset of cooperation, an "agreement to cut-throat compete" (which for me, yeah, yuck, not what I RPG for - but different strokes and all that) . . .  As MJ's post points out, and Christopher reiterates, Legends of Alyria *requires* cooperation - maybe a different form of cooperation than you like, but cooperation none the less.

So it looked like you were missing the point - not all non-PC-team play means competition between the players.

Does that make sense?  Of COURSE team-PC play can be functional and etc.  The implication was made that non-team-PC play could NOT - and the opinion here is it can.  In fact, "competitive" RPG play can be functional and all, if that's what you're into.

It may be hopeless now, but maybe - can we clear that issue out of the way?  And see if Ross or whoever has anything about "Character motivations" to add?  Otherwise, Ron will probably come by and appropriately close the thread  . . .

Gordon

[greyorm]

Alright, considering Chris' reaction, I was probably way too arcane with the content of my last post: my point is that we think about the reasons competetive RPGs are being dismissed.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here specifically. There is quite an undercurrent of resentment and dislike towards competition and what is derisively referred to as "ROLL-playing" in the gaming community. "Power gamer" and "munchkin" are considered demeaning curse words; immersion and character-acting with little "interference" by mechanics are upheld as the superior form of play, and the one to which all "true role-players" should aspire.

In fact, unsurprisingly, as either an addtional symptom of the above or the result of it, the whole "game" aspect of RPGs seems to be downplayed by gamers in their common literature.

More to the current point, what you see in many RPG manual introductions is the sacred mantra of "No one wins or loses" -- and so the attitude that winning and losing are for "lesser" games and less "socially mature" gamers (likely stemming from the apparent typical opinion of their social group many gamers have as mentally superior/more mature).

But, if the reasons competition in RPGs is labelled as negative do not hold true for similar activities (wargaming, cards, boardgames), then the reasons for the labelling in our community need to be seriously examined as well.

And in fact, this calls into question the idea that team-focused play is central or necessary to gaming, as posited by Ross early in this discussion, especially as Ross stated he is speaking about character-orientation only, not player-orientation.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Woah, Greyorm Dude,

It wasn't your post.  Trust me.

Just wanted to clear that up before I mosey on.

Christopher

[joshua neff]

I think I'm with Christopher. I can't think of anything to say--& anything I could say, someone else (like Alan, Raven, Gordon, Christopher, Ralph) has been saying better.

I will add this, though: Neil, Doctor Xero, & anyone else who is having trouble imagining such a thing as PCs acting separately while the players act together, not in competition but in collaboration, go read any of the threads in Actual Play or in the Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Dust Devils, and HeroQuest fora (for just a start) & see how people are playing these games and enjoying themselves. It's not cut-throat, it's not antagonistic--it's fun. Everyone is engaged & excited, not just about their own characters but about everyone's characters. While there may be a certain level of social competition going on, it's definitely not "win or lose." It's "everybody wins."

[ross_winn]

I think I'm with Christopher. I can't think of anything to say--& anything I could say, someone else (like Alan, Raven, Gordon, Christopher, Ralph) has been saying better.

I will add this, though: Neil, Doctor Xero, & anyone else who is having trouble imagining such a thing as PCs acting separately while the players act together, not in competition but in collaboration, go read any of the threads in Actual Play or in the Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Dust Devils, and HeroQuest fora (for just a start) & see how people are playing these games and enjoying themselves. It's not cut-throat, it's not antagonistic--it's fun. Everyone is engaged & excited, not just about their own characters but about everyone's characters. While there may be a certain level of social competition going on, it's definitely not "win or lose." It's "everybody wins."

Can anyone give me any mechanics or elements that reinforce this?

[joshua neff]

Can anyone give me any mechanics or elements that reinforce this?

Mechanics that reinforce people having fun? There aren't any that I can think of off the top of my head. It's reinforced through Social Contract. I'm not saying the games have rules that reinforce players acting together--yes, it is conceivable that a group playing Riddle of Steel or Dust Devils or Trollbabe or My Life With Master could get competitive and antagonistic enough with each other that people could walk away from the table mad at each other. Although I know of such rules in D&D, Champions, or Vampire that enfore "non-competitive fun" either. There's an assumption in D&D & Champions (less so in Vampire) that the PCs will work together as a team, but there are certainly no rules enforcing that, & I've seen & played gamesof D&D in which everyone was working separately.

But the question isn't whether there are mechanics that support or enforce players working together, the question is whether such play is automatically, or even typically, antagonistic, "back-stabbing," & negatively competitive. What I'm saying is that you can read many, many Actual Play posts on this site that show that such play is as cooperative as "the PCs are all in the same group" games.

[greyorm]

Woah, Greyorm Dude,
It wasn't your post.  Trust me.
Just wanted to clear that up before I mosey on.

Thanks for the heads-up, Christopher! I realized that this morning while browsing the thread again, and said "DOH!" to myself. Ah well.

[Jonathan Walton]

Can anyone give me any mechanics or elements that reinforce this?

Sure, take the "mechanic" of the traditional GM-player split.  Here's an exaggerated example:

The player's PC is Prince Charming, embodying everything that's good and nice in the world.

The GM is currently playing the Queen of Darkness, leader of a band of loathsome undead warriors.

The two characters are obviously in conflict.  Their players are not.  The GM (who's ultimately just another player in the game, with special perks) and the player work together to tell the story of Prince Charming battling the Queen of Darkness.  The characters have an antagonistic relationship because that's vital to the story.  Conflict creates interest.

The games that Alan mentioned, for the most part, allow players to portray characters like the Queen of Darkness, who have antagonistic relationships to other players, but aren't quite so exaggerated in their evilness.  Sometimes, after all, people just have different opinions about things and that leads them in different directions.

Actually, consider the party system again.  Many games that I've been in have used the party system as a way of supporting these kinds of antagonistic story-creating relationships, instead of a way of shoehorning everyone together and keeping them cooperating.  

For example, I was in this Vampire game where I was a newly created Vampire hanging out with a group of older ones.  They were all plenty jaded and used to the horrible things that Vampires do to stay alive.  My PC wasn't.  This made for an interesting relationship, as my PC was constantly trying to get them to "play nice" and they were constantly trying to get my PC to "loosen up."  This caused internal conflict within the group.  The PC couldn't leave because he didn't know any other Vampires in the city and couldn't return to his normal life, but he was disgusted by the others.

The between-character conflicts didn't tear the group apart, because the "party system" structure kept the characters together, even if they didn't especially like each other.  I think this is really, really common in many, many roleplaying groups.  I really don't see why you seem so adamant that all the characters have to work together and be unified in thought and action.  Have you had horrible games where the players couldn't get focused and the game went all over the place?  Because it seems to me that this desire for group unity (which many of us seem to think is unnecessary) must be driven by something.