Hey everyone,

I've been thinking a lot about the demos I played at GenCon over the past couple of days, the ones with pre-generated characters, Jake's Riddle of Steel demo, Ron's Sorcerer In Utero demo, Scott's Charnel Gods demo, and Matt Snyder's Dust Devils demo. They all featured character vs. character conflict, player characters shooting each other and chopping pieces off of each other.

Why is that?

Know that I'm not pointing critical fingers here. I helped author the Charnel Gods demo. I'm just curious what accounts for the pattern, and haven't been able to answer and understand it to my own satisfaction. What drives this feature? Actual non-demo play of these games can't possibly be ongoing PC vs. PC. In fact, I know it isn't. Is character vs. character just a way of demonstrating a game's features, and quickly reaching the hard wall of character death to naturally end the demo without getting bogged down in time-consuming roleplay? Or is it somehow perceived as more intense, a better way to provoke an adrenaline rush and interest in the game from potential customers? Does that actually work? Or is it just us and our Narrativist demos? Do we have an expectation that players can handle and enjoy competition at the character level coupled with collaborative creation of Narrative at the meta-level? If I had played in one of Greg Stolze's Godlike demos, would I have had character vs. character?

In thinking about those four demos, I'm discerning two distinct ways the authors achieved character vs. character conflict. Sorcerer In Utero and Dust Devils featured characters with incompatible objectives, placed into a situation where they were at odds with each other. Riddle of Steel and Charnel Gods featured characters with a common enemy, and separate objectives which were mutually incompatible. Both constructions quickly led to violent and hostile character vs. character situations. In retrospect, I think I prefer the latter construction. But is there any reason a demo designer might select one construction over the other?

Paul

Paul,

Awesome topic. I've also noticed that all the good demos I've been in featured character/character conflict. I played in a demo of Aberrant, White Wolf's superhero game, a few months ago. I'll be blunt: I think White Wolf's system is horrible. Yet - it was one of the most fun demos I've been in because of the character/character conflict.

I think the reason is because players take a while to understand a game, especially its setting and themes. Most players get conflict with another character quickly, though - it engages the players, which I've found to be nearly impossible at conventions. (I should post my story about running Sorcerer at a convention this weekend. It was fucking sad.) When you have two or more players interacting with each other, the involvement level and the excitement level for the players shoots right up.

As for the second part of your post, I can only answer it with an "I agree." In the demo I'm thinking of, all the characters had a common enemy, so to speak - a briefcase with unknown contents, and a bunch of other people looking for it. All the characters had their own objectives, though. I think the common enemy binds the group together enough that the demo situation doesn't get fragmented - while the characters are fighting, there is something that unites the players, and can allow for character cooperation.

This is simply the shortest rout to a conflict that requires as few NPCs as possible. And they are conflicts which involve as many players as intensely as possible. Yes, they are more intense when they are player vs. player. Ever felt a lack of drama going up against an NPC? That doesn't happen against a PC. Even if poorly characterized, the fact that they are another player's property make the conflict just that much more tense.

For a GM, this structure leaves you free to teach the game, and discuss its selling points. The players can handle all the logistics, and learn as they do.

And it is not impossible to do for long term regualr play, either. The players just have to understand that they are not allowed to deprotagonize each other's characters, most importantly that they are not allowed to kill each other unless it's crucial, or agreed upon. Take for instance Alyria, which features this sort of play. In the couple of games I've played, the characters were all at odds with each other, but nobody died, and everyone actually helped to protagonize all the characters, not just their own.

Very cool, and very viable.

For the demo's, death is allowed, even encouraged, because it is dramatic, and given that there is an acknowledged time limit, it completely makes sense to go that way. But note that, though death occurs, nobody is deprotagonized. Just out of the game. Or, rather, the player has gotten a chance to author his theme. Leaving one finished and satisfied. As in my second Dust Devils game where I had Jim go out in classic manner, gunned down like the dog he was. This is fun, and, again, perfectly viable for short term play.

Mike

I agree with everything that's been said so far, and...

Mike Holmes wrote: And it is not impossible to do for long term regualr play, either. The players just have to understand that they are not allowed to deprotagonize each other's characters, most importantly that they are not allowed to kill each other unless it's crucial, or agreed upon. Take for instance Alyria, which features this sort of play. In the couple of games I've played, the characters were all at odds with each other, but nobody died, and everyone actually helped to protagonize all the characters, not just their own.

Hey,

I've been thinking about this myself, and especially in the larger sense of a motif I'm seeing across many recent games: "The Hero Distraught." From TROS to Soap to Wuthering Heights to many others, most of the play I've conducted or read about seems to concern characters going all emotional and spinning off several relationships at once, often in extreme ways.

I think this may be a phase or something - we're all so giddy with the possibility of extreme behavior, with or without inter-character conflict, without the danger of being de-protagonized, that our games are beginning to look a bit pre-menstrual. (Ack! Did I say that?)

But back to the con demos - I think that a lot of us are trying to avoid the "meet and defeat Mr. Big Villain" con demo construction. Pretty much the only way to avoid that, in a one-hour max session, is to inject a lot of inter-player-character conflict.

Best,
Ron

You could note the primacy of inter-player conflict in demos and ask "why", or you could look at the lack of inter-player conflict in "regular" games and ask "why not?"
I like fostering inter-player conflict (or, rather, inter-player tension) in my games. Both participants have a lot more of a stake in the outcome than in player vs. NPC conflicts. In the latter case, on some level, the GM has the motivation of "getting on with it," or at least taking the focus off the one PC in the spotlight.
I think demos foster this kind of game because the plots are easier to understand when it's simply "you both want this one thing" or whatever. Players don't need any detailed knowledge of the game to get into it. Also, in demos, the GMs effort has to be divided between teaching the rules and playing NPCs, and the former has to take precedence in an effective demo.
Also, in "full" games, inter-player conflict might lead to one player taking the upper hand socially, and can make other players feel secondary if it's not managed correctly.