I've been in a moderately long running IRC game of StarCluster (a space-faring RPG in the hard-science style of Niven). The characters are crew and owners of a stolen space ship and have just gotten their first shady deal and come through a harrowing customs check. The original core of players was/is very tight-knit. Some of the new arrivals, however, weren't integrating well.

In the episode this post is related to, tempers in game and out of game had flared. Because it was over IRC it was (for me, as a player) very hard to know who was taking it personally and who wasn't--and what to do about it.

Here's what happened: I'll introduce the characters and then the channel IRC text from our after-game discussion. The in-game events are available in a thread on RPG.net if anyone is interested.

Game Links:
StarCluster: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/starcluster.html
The Terran Story:  http://www.timelessgamez.com
RPG.net Actual Play Thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=197526&page=1&pp=60

The Characters and Players
Dean (Uplift Hyena), Me
Dean is one of the original crew and the ship's captain (elected by random-roll). He is well liked by all the crew and the players including the newcomers.

Yoriko (human), Rachel
Yoriko is a native of the same orbital where all the original crew grew up. She is diplomatically savvy. Rachel is Albert (Brindella's) wife and a first time roleplayer. This is her first game.

Brindella (human), Albert
Brin is a technical specialist. She is one of the core-crew (original players). Albert is one of StarCluster's authors (and a long time player).

Satch (human), Klaxon
Satch is one of the core crew and a security officer on the ship. He is the 18-year old son of the GM (the other author of StarCluster).

Guardian 17 (bio-mod), DLathrop
Guardian is a new arrival: a bio-engineered humanoid unicorn. He is a medic. I don't know the player that well: he was a new arrival to the group and integrated very well.

Johnny Wannabe (human), Rich
Johnny is a hacker from the planet we had landed on and hired aboard. He's space-scum--but seems to have some deeper principles. The player is the author of The Terran Story (another sci fi RPG) and a friend of the GM's (Clash). I had never met him before this game.

The Cat (robot), Gui-Gee
A new arrival: a mechanical cat. He was almost immediately in conflict with the crew (sabotaging electronics). I don't know the player that well. He was disconnected from the channel mid-way through the game so he wasn't involved in the end-discussion.

Vaxalon
He was an observer in the channel. He didn't play a character.

Clash
The GM and co-author of StarCluster. A 'situational' GM, he doesn't believe in dictating outcomes or interfering in player-choices.

The Problem
There had been some tension with new arrivals coming onboard (including another new player who joined this session but did not last long in the game and was even more contentious than Johnny). The problem was that several players and several characters had problems with Johnny. He was seen as abrasive, somewhat condescending, and untrustworthy as a character. As a player, it was not clear (to me) what his desired outcome was--I was not certain he wouldn't betray us "in character" and derive enjoyment from that.

The conversation
Here is the conversation as it occurred on IRC.

Yoriko> Something that I am not happy about tonight: I see some difficulties cropping up among the players, and some out-of-character actions being taken. And quite a lot of real hostility. This is not good for a game.
Satch> Johnny rubs Satch all the wrong way
Hyena_Dean> [ I share that assement to a certain degree. IRC makes it difficult for me to tell how much is player and how much is character ]
Brindella> Everyone, I think.
Johnny_Wannabe> Which is as it should be. Johnny is a new comer and Johnny is scumm bag
Hyena_Dean> [ actually, I share that assment all the way ]
Satch> I try to think of satch being hard to rub wrong but johnny does it somehow
Hyena_Dean> well, that's fine: but as with MMPORGS, I think there should be agreements about what kind of PvP goes on.
Hyena_Dean> I mean, character's arguing is *fine* if the players are havin' fun
StarCluster-GM> Go ahead, Vax
Guardian17> Aye, IF the players are having fun.
Johnny_Wannabe> I should have been offended from day one but it's a GAME.
Vaxalon> I tell my players, "If you make a character that everyone hates, I'll ask, periodically, 'Does the party have a good reason to keep this guy in the group?' and if they all say 'no' then your PC is out, just as if he had died, and you make a new one."
Vaxalon> "And your new one needs to have a reason to be kept in the group."
Johnny_Wannabe> Fine, jetison Johnny with the other cargo.
StarCluster-GM> Here Dean eats their thumbs.
Guardian17> I think the problem is, we really don't have any one here who has a reason to trust anyone...
Brindella> Characters had better get along somewhat. The rest of the characters are going to kill Johnney if he keeps acting this way.
Satch> and the new one needs to get in somehow
Hyena_Dean> well, wait a second: I think a case can be made for keeping Johnny.
Vaxalon> There shouldn't be a magic "PC" stamp on the forehead that keeps characters from doing things they'd ordinarily do.
Johnny_Wannabe> Here's a question. Has anyone tried to get to know Johnny?
Yoriko> Actually, the four original characters do trust each other: Dean, Brin, Satch and Yoriko.
Hyena_Dean> Somewhat less so than the cat at this point but the magic of a bad connection took care of that.
Satch> I trust 17 because he helped satch when he was in troble
Vaxalon> Has anyone had a reason to get to know Johnny?
Johnny_Wannabe> Or have they just made pre-judgements and heaped scorn on him.
Hyena_Dean> Actually, my character is okay with Johnny.
Johnny_Wannabe> Let's see Vax. He fought along side the characters.
Guardian17> I WANT Johnny around.
Johnny_Wannabe> Worked with them.
Yoriko> I did apologize. Lot of good it did. And where did that NASTINESS come from to the customs agent at the end?
Johnny_Wannabe> Done NOTHING to make them mistrust him.
Vaxalon> Okay, well, if your character doesn't want to get rid of him, then don't get rid of him.
Hyena_Dean> Other than that knife scare, I see him as a bit on the not-as-slick-as-he-thinks-he-is but not a traitor (the ramblings aside)
Johnny_Wannabe> Obviously, he doesn't like law officials. He's from doublet!!
Johnny_Wannabe> Do you like Doublet law officials?
Guardian17> But you don't just go and antagonize one...
Hyena_Dean> however: I don't like other players getting annoyed with in-game actions.
Johnny_Wannabe> Players shouldn't. They should think as their characters.
Johnny_Wannabe> I don't think Johnny fits in either. He should go.
Vaxalon> Johnny: They shouldn't, but they do.
Hyena_Dean> Well, that's good in theory--however, there are some things in-game that I don't put up with IRL.
Hyena_Dean> In fact, some of the things my character has done has pushed my limits.
Satch> Klaxon has no problem with johnny, I have played many a scumbag in my day
Yoriko> I'm not trying to jettison Johnny. I'd like to be able to depend on him, however.
Guardian17> There's the problem, I think. Dependance.
Hyena_Dean> if someone told me that they were offended by my character's actions I would tone them down (and apologize) no matter how IC or how relevant in-game.
Johnny_Wannabe> What has he done that makes you think you cannot depend on him.
Vaxalon> Trust isn't something people give out for free, especially in this kind of situation.
Johnny_Wannabe> Sorry for any offense.
Vaxalon> The question is, what has Johnny done to invite friendship?
Johnny_Wannabe> Hmm, laid his life on the line for people he doesn't know.
Yoriko> Left in a huff because Yoriko was doing as the Captain ordered with the customs agents. Sulked in his room even when it was clear that he could be useful. Had to be begged to come out and help. Offended the customs agent by lewd comments.
Vaxalon> That's trust.
Hyena_Dean> I had the same reaction to Johnny's leaving after I asked Yoriko to greet the customs agents
Johnny_Wannabe> No, he left in a huff because things were going bad.
Vaxalon> You mean he left in a huff because there was a crisis coming?
Yoriko> I just think that we need to get things a little smoother. There are always going to be surprises in this game; that's what happens. We need to be able to work together.
Guardian17> That's the LAST point anyone should leave in a huff. Adapt, adopt, improve.
Johnny_Wannabe> He was there. He asked questions. He offerend imput.
Guardian17> Exactly. We do need to be able to work together.
Johnny_Wannabe> 17 - i agree. but if no one wants you to try to work together . . .
Hyena_Dean> Well, I think we do want to work together. I know I do.
Hyena_Dean> I'm not sure where things went wrong, exactly
Yoriko> Yoriko has been suspicious of Johnny because she thinks he's trying for a free ride out of whatever trouble he was in on Doublet. It doesn't incline her to trust him; that's why she overreacted last week. She's not proud of herself; and Johnny now has some credit coming with her; if he wants to work it out.
Johnny_Wannabe> Johnny has no problem with Dean. In fact, he probably holds a great deal of respect for him.
Johnny_Wannabe> He has no problem with Yoriko.
Guardian17> The problem is, different attitudes. Everyone else puts up with authority. Goes by its rules until it's gone. Johnny doesn't like authority. That's fine. But we need to come to a consensus on that.
Hyena_Dean> but I'd like to see a resolution where we keep Johnny and resolve the IC and OOC issues with the parties.
Johnny_Wannabe> He has no problem with anyone on the crew. He accepts people as they are.
Satch> Satch has had a lot of trouble on doublet and hasn't sorted out how he feels about anyone yet
Guardian17> Aye. That's what I want.
Hyena_Dean> I think two things will work:
Hyena_Dean> 1. During scenes of argument use [OOC] comments to make it clear where the player stands.
Hyena_Dean> If we were face to face it wouldn't be so bad.
Hyena_Dean> IRC is *sterile*
Brindella> Bye. I need to get to bed.
Hyena_Dean> bye
Guardian17> Night!
Brindella [~AWBailey5@Magicstar-46023.187.popsite.net] has left #starcluster-rpg
Vaxalon [~othaherzo@Magicstar-63374.wdc2-4.14.64.169.wdc2.dsl-verizon.net] has left #starcluster-rpg
StarCluster-GM> Night Alb... Dang!
Guardian17> Always happens.
Hyena_Dean> 2. Make a personal commitment to keep to the characters as much as possible but assume they have, individually determined that they'll try to be more cohesive.
Hyena_Dean> I think if we do that we're golden.
Yoriko> Sounds doable.
Johnny_Wannabe> I think it's best to pull Johnny out of play because he HAS tried.
Johnny_Wannabe> He doesn't mesh with the group.
Hyena_Dean> What I'm talking about is a player-commitment, not a character commitment, but if that's your feeling I can respect it.
Johnny_Wannabe> I think he could serve a real purpose.
Hyena_Dean> As do I.
Johnny_Wannabe> Maybe he should become an NPC.
Guardian17> Well, wait, maybe we should pull back and look at this differently.
Hyena_Dean> well, maybe. He's a good character--I am with Guardian - give it some time.
Yoriko> I don't see any reason to dump him; let's just try to shake down and work together.
Johnny_Wannabe> The problem lies in the fact that only three characters have tried to build a rapport with Johnny - Dean, Yoriko, and 17.
Guardian17> My question is, what does each character see the group as? Do they see themsleves as part of a whole, or what?
Johnny_Wannabe> Satch and Johnny can work together. Like checking out the cargo last week.
Yoriko> We had BETTER see ourselves as part of a whole, or what's the point? It's us against the big bad universe out there.
Hyena_Dean> I don't think anything has gone to the point where we jettison a character.
Guardian17> Definitely not.
Hyena_Dean> Just a little more tweaking on the interaction and I think we're good.
Guardian17> Yes, most definitely. Oh, and, um, I know Satch has been on edge lately...
Johnny_Wannabe> I think more character interaction is important. If you want to know about someone you don't just insult them constantly.
Yoriko> And, pardon me, Johnny could try a little harder to build rapport too; he's the new kid on the block.
Johnny_Wannabe> Yep, I'll give you that.
Hyena_Dean> I think this will certainly work if we go both ways on it.
Yoriko> Maybe we could start next week with that meal Yoriko is fixing, talk a little about our various experiences, share and all that?
Yoriko> Or is that a girly thing?
Guardian17> Good idea!
Hyena_Dean> That'd be interesting
Johnny_Wannabe> There's too much action sometimes and not enough dialogue.
Hyena_Dean> hell, I wrote a character background
Satch doesn't usually insult but he lost a lot of his cool when he was under the snipers scope
StarCluster-GM> I haven't said anything for a while, as this is a player thing, but I haven't given you any TIME to shake out - that is my fault.
Yoriko> Satch had reason. Sniper fire is scary--and he stood up to it beautifully.
Johnny_Wannabe> As the new guy, I'm more than willing to try harder.
Johnny_Wannabe> As for the Satch-Johnny relationship. I think that could become one of the stronger bonds.
Guardian17> True, true. He would be jumpy after that.
Yoriko> Didn't we all write character backgrounds? We could share, in character, whatever seems appropriate. As long as we can get people to stop shooting at us for a little while!
Satch> he also lost some of his trust in the others at that point, because he had to help himself
Johnny_Wannabe> I see Satch and Johnny as two sides of the same coin.
StarCluster-GM> We had some down times on the way here, and we got together well. Next week is time for some getting the rough edges polished off.
Hyena_Dean> I have a character background story that's 2-3 pgs long. I can send them out if anyone who hasn't seen it is interested in reading it.
Yoriko> Satch--what should we have done to help? I couldn't think of anything--but maybe we should have done SOMETHING.
Satch> I asked three or for times for someone to look for the red dot but no-one heard
Johnny_Wannabe> Dean's the glue that holds it all together.
Guardian17> I think letting it come out in game is best.
Yoriko> I guess I didn't understand what you were asking for, Satch.
Johnny_Wannabe> I wasn't there Satch. That's where Johnny would have stepped up.
Satch> so he had to take a chance with the turn around
Yoriko> This would be a good thing for us to deal with in character next week, too--it makes sense that Satch is angry and let down.
Johnny_Wannabe> Johnny doesn't really care about himself. If you haven't noticed.
Satch> he also got covered in the woman's brains and couldn't help but think that that could be him
Hyena_Dean> nod.
Guardian17> Aye. My character would have thought about it from that end, but I, of course... eep.
Yoriko> Mmm. Yes. Post-traumatic stress syndrome, short form--and he's only 15 or so too.
Satch> satch also put duty above all else, that's why he closed that door and risked being spaced
Johnny_Wannabe> As Dean said, it's tough when we're not sitting around a table.
Yoriko> Satch is entirely right.
Guardian17> Aye. But you know what? We're here, we're doing it. Tough or not.
Johnny_Wannabe> And Satch, as a character, should act ticked.
Hyena_Dean> (and the Satch-rescue bit was one of the more terrifying parts of the game!)
Yoriko> Okay. Are we good for next week? It really is bedtime.
Hyena_Dean> yep
Guardian17> Aye!
Hyena_Dean> see you all next week!
Satch> I'm good
StarCluster-GM> I'm cool
Johnny_Wannabe> Yep.

Results
I'll discuss the results of this in a follow-up post.

-Marco

I think you have a great opportunity with your character, as the captain, to try to drag the group together as a cohesive whole. Maybe talk to the players out-of-game about this and get them to buy into the idea and help the story (and ship) come together as a result.

A few things to note:

1. This happened in the past. The results are already in (that wasn't clear from my post--sorry).

2. As the captian I could order characters around--but that wouldn't resolve people's OOC problems. There are cases where an IC order to get along could solve an OOC problem (specifically the "why would my character give that character the time of day?")--but I think the problems ran deeper than that here--or, at least, maybe they did.

The issues were (to my read):
IC Trust vs OOC Community
As a player I wanted to trust the new player--and therefore extend some level of trust to the character (i.e. not kick him off the ship and then be in a paradoxical position of saying "Rich, I really like you. Too bad we can't play together.")

OOC Trust
I wasn't completely sure that Rich wasn't the kind of person who wouldn't betray us to our dooms. It became clear in the after-action chat that he wasn't--but, for example, the cat I'm still not sure about. Having a good deal invested in the game, I wanted to ensure its safety as a player entirely outside of IC concerns.

3. My character is the captain by random-roll (in game and out of game--the characters used the ship's computer to randomize the captaincy). I am a co-owner with the original crew. In character I can't really order them around--not really (as co-owners, although they agreed to follow my commands they weren't bound to as a normal ship's crew would be). My point is that the captaincy does not, in the eyes of the majority of the players and their characters "make me special."

Out of character I (believe) had something of a leadership role in the group--or, rather, via the magic of IRC, my real-life personality was somewhat fused with my IC personality: most of those players know Dean better than they know me. They've all spent more time with Dean--and as persona, the real person on the other end of the keyboard makes the same amount of impact.

In out of game conversations in other channels I've been referred to as Dean.

People who say that character's "don't exist" are being a bit pedantic: as far as my relationship with Rachel was concerned at that point, Marco was someone she didn't know real well. She liked playing with Dean.

What this means is that my ability and responsibility to keep the group cohesive is very hazy. As a captian I'd want to do what's best for the ship. As a player I want to do what's best for the game. From someone else's perspective where my responsibility and abilty to act lies is, IMO, not clear.

The GM can take a leadership role in this--but Clash (wisely, IMO) wasn't doing that--nor did we, as a group of adults expect him to.

So you're right: I probably could've, acting as Marco and Dean done things to promote group cohesion.

The question is: was it my responsibility to? Was I expected to? Should/could I have expected everyone else to be doing the same?

-Marco

Marco wrote:
A few things to note:

1. This happened in the past. The results are already in (that wasn't clear from my post--sorry).

Marco wrote: A few things to note:
So you're right: I probably could've, acting as Marco and Dean done things to promote group cohesion.

The question is: was it my responsibility to? Was I expected to? Should/could I have expected everyone else to be doing the same?

Andrew wrote:
But, uhm, you wanted group cohesion, right? Enough to worry about it, talk about it after the game, post a thread about it later.

So why on earth wouldn't you do things to promote it? It's trivial to throw on an IC veneer for this kind of thing -- "Look, folks, I may not be the boss, but I'm telling you, we better hash this out before somebody gets killed."

Marco wrote:
I'm not sure that a purely IC solution would work for what may be an OC problem. That's where I was goin' with that.

Andrew wrote:

Marco wrote:
I'm not sure that a purely IC solution would work for what may be an OC problem. That's where I was goin' with that.

Understood. My preferred solution is to call a time out and talk about things OOC when that kind of problem comes up, but I'm starting to see how rarely that's workable. I tried that in a game tonight, and it went over like a lead balloon. I guess IC steps can be taken to smooth things over, but they're only a stopgap measure until you can have a post-game conversation about the issue.

I'm not familiar with the StarCluster rules, so I hope I can be forgiven a quick question:  Is there any way, under the rules, to actually address the issue that Johnny is space-scum and shouldn't be trusted, and get any story mileage out of it?  Like, in Dogs, this would be the root of a lot of good stakes.  In Capes it would be a recurring conflict ("Do we trust Johnny in this instance?") 

But in D&D it would just be a constant source of contention ("He has to stay in the group, but that makes it impossible for us to play a group of good-guys like we want"), in large part because there is, mechanically and imaginatively, no sane way to deal with the conflict IC.

So which are we looking at here?

1. Klax (Satch) says he doesn't have any problem OOC with Johnny--but doesn't like him IC. I'm not sure what that means. It may mean "I don't mind you as a person--but the game is grating on my nerves." Johnny, at one point, says something like "it's just a game."

This is a complicated problem, and one that plagues a lot of play. When you play trying to hide player motives, it inevitably leads to players wondering about the motives of the other players. That is, we all know that the acts of the character in question are the responsibility of the player. But when the player can't be seen behind the character, we don't know if his motives match his characters, or are different, or what.

What happens is that players start worrying that the players are using their characters as shields to protect themselves from responsibility - My Guy Syndrome. Now, I'm going to assume that the player playing Johnny in this case was "honest" in that he wasn't trying to disrupt the game or have fun at the other player's expenses. But the problem is that the other players can't tell that. When the player has the character do something antagonistic, they sense that, just perhaps, the player is screwing with them.

There's an easy way out of this, which is to maintain the OOC dialog while playing. This is why I have two windows in IRC play, one in which everything is IC (in-game, really, as events get narrated there, too), and another with only OOC talk. And the OOC talk is encouraged. What happens is that players can discuss things like whether or not it would be cool to have another PC approach Johnny to get to know him, or whatever.

Now, the "immersionists" might not like this, I realize. But that's the tradeoff. If you play without OOC discussion of play, suspicions will emerge, and character antagonism will get conflated with player antagonism (even if honest - if My Guy is actually going on, it's worse because the player is actually doing things without consideration for the other players).

If you can't take to the idea of playing with OOC chatter all the time, then I'd suggest at least having dedicated spots, say before or after play, where you step OOC and discuss what's going on. That's what you were forced to do in this case to sort things out.

The other consideration here is the classic sim "party-play" problem. This one is really bad. Basically the immersionists don't want player motive showing in what characters are doing. Yet party play assumes that the players will use active player adjustment of character action in order to keep the character in most or all scenes (rather, "with the party"). This is a conflict that has never worked, and never will. You can't have it both ways.

The solution here is to either not do party play (instead moving to scene play perhaps), or to allow OOC thinking as part of the agenda. The conflict you're feeling, Marco, is the imperative to support party play vs, the imperative to not make decisions based on player needs. As a group you have to decide which way to break.

Now, what many of us here would say is that the problems of persuing immersion are just not worth the benefits. That is, we non-immersionist players seem to have just as much fun without worrying about the appearance of player motive in play as we did when we were immersionists (I can at least speak for myself here).

The other option, I'm not sure if Clash is ready for. As a "situational" GM, I see this as a statement that he plays a fairly Open Sim sort of game. The problem with using scene play for this is that without him at the reigns actually using some GM authority to put characters in contact with each other, they'll drift apart.

Basically somebody has to be, as a player, and using player motives, responsible for things like character intersection (whether using party play, or scene play). Open Sim play where the GM doesn't use his authority to centralize action, and the players don't either, leads to really dull play - because it also means that nobody is responsible for things like theme. Making play more like life than an RPG. This always devolves into shopping trips and such, and player motive slowly seeps back in.

I think that this form of play comes about largely from trying to avoid dysfunction from player/GM plot control clash. That is, the players and GM both back off of controlling the plot, and then, unsurprisingly, there is none. Somebody has to take the lead on this. If Clash doesn't do it, then I'd strongly suggest that you take the responsibility to do so. Yes, that means that (gasp) you have to play narrativism. But there's really no other way out.

Mike

I don't have too much to say after what Mike said.  I normally address in-character conflicts that start to bleed into inter-player conflicts by making sure I'm speaking in third person and summing up dialogue when possible.  "You said you wouldn't do that" becomes "Sarah yells at Billy for not sticking to his word".  Explicitly detaching player and character.  But that's face-to-face play.  IRC definitely makes that problematic, because you're missing those social clues that let you know it's time to protect the other player's feelings.

TonyLB wrote:
I'm not familiar with the StarCluster rules, so I hope I can be forgiven a quick question:  Is there any way, under the rules, to actually address the issue that Johnny is space-scum and shouldn't be trusted, and get any story mileage out of it?  Like, in Dogs, this would be the root of a lot of good stakes.  In Capes it would be a recurring conflict ("Do we trust Johnny in this instance?") 

But in D&D it would just be a constant source of contention ("He has to stay in the group, but that makes it impossible for us to play a group of good-guys like we want"), in large part because there is, mechanically and imaginatively, no sane way to deal with the conflict IC.

So which are we looking at here?

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.

Marco wrote:
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

TonyLB wrote:

Marco wrote:
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?

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

Mark wrote:
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.

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

Marco wrote:

Mark wrote:
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.

Mark wrote:
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.

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

Marco wrote: 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.

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

Mike wrote: Just that your version is not what Marco is describing.

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

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

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

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