In my own little theory of how RPGs work the motivations of the characters are critically important. Important to the dynamics of the play group and to the dynamics of the games I am interested in designing.

I have delineated three distinct types of motivations.

Survival Motivation: Why does the character keep going. In the face of the cold cruel world why don't they just say "fsck it" and pull the pin on a grenade, take a bottle of pills, or jump off a bridge.

Team Motivation: Why not just go it alone? You don't have to share the treasure, you don't have anyone to let you down, you don't have to share the spotlight. So why do you want to work as part of a larger whole?

Heroic Motivation: Why are you a hero? Are you righting a past wrong? Are you avenging something? Are you just altruistic and good? There has to be a reason you are a hero.

With these three motivations I can build a character for nearly any kind of game. However would it be better to codify a mechanic to reinforce these ideas? Should aspects of each motivation be parameters or attribuites of a system?

Yes, no.

It depends on what kind of rpg you want to play. In my limited experience, if you want to generate a good story, character motivation mechanics can get in the way. That is, the dice say one thing but the story would be better if something else happened. I find there is also a conflict of purpose. I play a story-telling game more for the intrinsic satisfaction of telling a good story, not for the extrinsic motivation of playing a good game.

On the other hand, if you want a good 'game', character motivation mechanics can be fun. Clever game play and leveraging the game mechanics to your advantage can be extrinsically satisfying (a la D&D).

About your motivations, what value do you see in labelling them? 'Heroic' and 'Survival' are hard to distinguish. Frex, my character Abelard seeks the basis of eternal life. His motivation is to uphold family honour---his father sought the secret, but failed (as did his father). There is no need to label his motivation as heroic or survivalist. He has a goal and a motivation and that's sufficient. (Actually it's not really, because he also needs a conflict---the thing that is stopping him from achieving his goal; in his case it's that the basis of eternal life is an unkown mystery, veiled in legend, hearsay, danger and secrecy.)

I don't think "Team motivation" is a motivation. Rather, being part of a team is an end to a goal. Whether or not a person joins a team will depend on other aspects of their personality (extraversion, intraversion, pride, stubborness etc) and the current strength of their goal-motivation.

HI ross,

How do player motivations relate to character motivations?

I think that discussing player motivations is counterproductive in this. I am trying to discuss quantifiable character elements.

It's just that I recall trying to put character motivation mechanics into several games in the past and my players just weren't interested in using them. As a result, the character's behaved as the player wanted, not as the mechanic indicated. It seems to me that the players have to be brought into character motivations somehow.

Or that the mechanic needs better rewards, perhaps. Or a little of both.

But I'm not entirely sure that ross's Three Motivations are at all necessary for characters. "Team" in particular isn't necessary for, quite frankly, the majority of characters - it's only through the relic of "party-oriented" play that you have to consider this element.

Lxndr wrote: Or that the mechanic needs better rewards, perhaps. Or a little of both.

But I'm not entirely sure that ross's Three Motivations are at all necessary for characters. "Team" in particular isn't necessary for, quite frankly, the majority of characters - it's only through the relic of "party-oriented" play that you have to consider this element.

Alan wrote: It's just that I recall trying to put character motivation mechanics into several games in the past and my players just weren't interested in using them. As a result, the character's behaved as the player wanted, not as the mechanic indicated. It seems to me that the players have to be brought into character motivations somehow.

I say motivations should be represented in mechanics.

Some examples of when players can use them:

1. Resist mind-effecting magic.
2. Resist any other form of persuasion.
3. Keep going when the character is in a tight spot.
4. Possibly in convincing others, if the genuine feeling of the character is in question.

Cheers, Jim

I've found motivations, such as the three motivations delineated by Ross, can be
important when I'm attempting to run a story-oriented game with roleplayers. Rather
than impose the storyline from above via game master fiat/manipulation or via player
meta-gaming, I work together with the players to devise character conception motivations
which inherently direct their PCs in the general direction of the storyline.

In terms of motivation influence on the game itself, I will usually give bonuses and
penalties to rolls based upon character conception and the PC's motivations of the
moment. This not only rewards genuine roleplayers but penalizes players who have
not bothered to determine motivations for their PCs and who therefore miss out on
any chance to argue for bonuses and any chance for the extra experience points I give
players for working with penalties which come from PC conceptions and motivations.

Apropos Ross' motivation schema:

Survival Motivation. It can be useful to the story we're weaving if each PC's survival
instinct fits into the anticipated story direction. However, I perceive a lot of overlap
between Survival motivation and Heroic motivation -- as Otto Rank pointed out, in
some ways it is an act of mundane heroism to continue onward each day without
selling out (to rephrase his turn-of-the-century words into modern idiom).

Team Motivation. I've always found it valuable to ask players to determine consciously
a team motivation for each PC because, at university, one encounters a vast number
of people who want to participate in large gaming groups yet are enamoured with
the image of the unfriendly loner, and the Batman-as-loner-in-a-team shtick only
works so often.

Heroic Motivation. This motivation only matters in campaigns in which I ~want~
players to play heroes! Some of the more intriguing World of Darkness campaigns
have protagonists without ever having heroes.

A side frustration: I find it harder and harder every year to react gracefully to players
who insist that no one in real life would ever do anything for altruistic or ethical
reasons. Aaargh!

Doctor Xero

I think team motivation is imperative unless you are playing a solo game, period.

Lxndr wrote:

I think team motivation is imperative unless you are playing a solo game, period.

So a game like, say, most versions of Sorcerer, is untenable? Or any sort of political-struggle-between-characters-and-players (like Amber, mayhaps)?

Lxndr wrote: "Team" in particular isn't necessary for, quite frankly, the majority of characters - it's only through the relic of "party-oriented" play that you have to consider this element.

I didnt say that the players would only have a team agenda. However they do need a reason to work within the collaborative framework.

Lxndr wrote: So the PLAYERS need a reason to work together, not the CHARACTERS (who might indeed be working at odds, i.e. not "as a team" within the collaborative framework). Which makes this a player motivation, not a character one, yes?

Relic implies old, not necessarily unused (at least, in my experience). But we're definitely roaming into the realm of personal preference and anecdotal evidence, which is outside the realm of theory. All I can say is yes, there are a substantial number of games where the CHARACTERS don't work as a team, or even towards the same goal (but the players often do work together nonetheless).

ross_winn wrote:
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.

ross_winn wrote: 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.

ross_winn wrote: 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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

[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

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

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,

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

RDU Neil wrote: 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...

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.

RDU Neil wrote: 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?

Doctor Xero wrote: 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.

RDU Neil wrote: 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?

M. J. Young wrote: 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

M. J. Young wrote: Hackmaster, as written, makes it very clear that the players are playing against the referee.

M. J. Young wrote: The goal in a game like Legends of Alyria is to create great stories.

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

M. J. Young wrote: Hackmaster, as written, makes it very clear that the players are playing against the referee.

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.

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"]

Christopher Kubasik wrote: The way you keep sweeping this big paintbrush around claiming that all games

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

Doctor Xero wrote: this also explains why I mislike RPGs such as Hackmaster

Doctor Xero wrote: 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.

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.

I wish I could say something in reply...

but I can't.

Good luck all.

Christopher

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

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.

Woah, Greyorm Dude,

It wasn't your post. Trust me.

Just wanted to clear that up before I mosey on.

Christopher

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."

joshua neff wrote: 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 wrote: Can anyone give me any mechanics or elements that reinforce this?

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

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

joshua neff wrote: Neil, Doctor Xero, & anyone else who is having trouble imagining such a thing as PCs acting separately while the players act together

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

I cross-posted with Doctor Xero.

I hope that I have not been taken either as attacking cooperative PC play or as thinking Doctor Xero has been attacking it; I enjoy a good party game, as long as all the players can manage to show up with some regularity. There are several people on this thread expressing different shades of viewpoints, and it's easy for comments to be misdirected or misattributed; that's a mistake, not an attack.

If I may, I'd like to comment on one point.

Doctor Xero wrote: For a good example of the sort of situations I try to avoid, take a look at almost any Knights of the Dinner Table comic book.

Doctor Xero--

I don't think anyone here is saying "non-party" games are better than "party" games. I like both--I love superhero teams & pulp adventurer teams. When it comes to swords & sorcery, I love the friendship between Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser. What I (&, I believe, the others) are saying is that "party" is not the default for RPGs, nor is it necessarily something that should be pushed. If the gaming group wants to have the PCs all as one happy group, fine. If not, that's fine, too. I don't see either as inherently better than the other. Nor do I see "non-party" as inherently less competitive or "back-stabby"--I've certainly played in enough "party" games in which one or more players did their best to compete with other players. As MJ pointed out, there's a huge difference between dysfunctional play & "non-party" play, & "non-party" doesn't push dysfunctional anymore than (in my experience) "party" pushes cooperation & camaraderie.

greyorm wrote:
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.

KoDT is a wonderfully funny strip; however, I think most of us agree that it represents dysfunctional gaming.

Intelligent discussion requires the willingness to critique and to be critiqued.

I hope that people in this forum feel free to critique my comments, with intelligence
and/or humor, or to share thoughts inspired by my comments, and that I may be
allowed to do the same.

However,

when you critique what I write, critique what I write -- don't "put words in my mouth"
and then critique me for those words falsely ascribed to me.

When I preface my comments with "personally" and then make only comments about
my individual preferences, don't reverse my words and then critique me for allegedly
making universal comments. Comments on one's personal preferences are the opposite
of universalized comments.

When I write about "PC (player-character) competition" not about player competition,
don't misread player-character as player and then claim I've written about player
competition and critique me for alleged comments I'd never made.

Making certain we critique ~only~ what another poster has actually written is a good
practice in general. It promotes intelligent discussion.

Making certain we critique ~only~ what another poster has actually written is a good
practice in general. It keeps topics from devolving into one party reiterating what he/she
said while the other party ignores the reiteration and continues to critique based
on perpetuated misreading.

As for this topic, after six apparently futile posts, I've given up on damage control to
clarify what I had actually written as opposed to the words repeatedly put in my mouth.

I post the above only so that future readers of this topic will know that I commented on
my own personal preferences and on player-character competitive play, never on
universals and never on player competitive play (except for one post about what often
happens when competitive players and cooperative playing groups clash).

My sympathies to ross_winn for having his topic derailed by this.

Doctor Xero

Hello,

Ross, it's your call whether to close this thread or not. Let me know.

Best,
Ron

I am reluctant to post again here, but I found something in another thread which seemed all-too-pertinent.

Mike Holmes wrote: The social contract causes the competition to be honest.

Hey, Doctor. Welcome to the Forge.

Absolutely, DX. And I'm sorry if I misinterpreted some of your posts before.

Wait a minute! No, no, no! I was being SNARKY!

For God's sake.... The man just encapsulated the basic understanding of how social agenda is vital to character motivation -- an encapsulation and understanding that everyone else in the discussion already possesed -- and raises it like its the bloody Grail! Excuse me?

Josh, you didn't misrepresent anything! If you look back at the Doctor's post on pages 2 and 3 of this thread, you will Dr. X constantly conflating PC's working against each other as leading directly to players fighting each other. It's right there in the posts. Go read them again.

Here's one magic trick I found with little effort:

"I personally prefer, for myself, with no universal statements about what anyone else is allowed to prefer, in my own tastes, personally, ~I~ prefer cooperative PC gaming over competitive PC playing, especially when I am acting as a game master. For a good example of the sort of situations I try to avoid, take a look at almost any Knights of the Dinner Table comic book."

The fact that he "personally" doesn't like styles of play where PCs are competative has nothing to do with the fact that he somehow elides competive PCs into the fighting, annoying players from KotDT. How was such a counterintuitive leap possible? Only Dr. Xero knows -- and that's why everybody kept going to bat against him.

This was always the issue: not whether or not he liked a certain style of play, but his insistant, sometimes explcit, sometimes implicit, joining of PCs working at cross-purposes with a competition beween players. And, moreover, not only competetion between players, but, by dragging in KotDt and other concerns, equating people playing competative PCs with crude, obnoxious and annoyingly abusive players.

You interpreted his statement absolutely spot on until the top of page 4 when he took out the concerns about players fighting and left it as saying, "I don't like games where PCs fight." Well, bully for him. But it was a little late in the discussion to let all of his concerns about the behavior of the *players* slip away without comment. If he had wanted to back-pedal a bit, fine. But he should have said something, like, "I realize I've been overstating my case..." Or perhaps he hadn't noticed he'd been overstating his case. Either way, it was on his head.

When he finally acknowledged that there are permutation possible, some workable, some unworkable, between combinations of PC and Player cometition, he only reached a conclusion that everyone else here already has. Hence, "Welcome to The Forge."

The fact the he seemed really revitalized to have found this treasure, after already high-handing everybody with lectures about how to communicate when his own communication had become slippery, at best. This is a man who in his first post on the dangers of PC / Player rivalry says, "and/or" in terms of combination, but it's just my taste. Then in the following post wrote, "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." Later he wrote, "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." Every post suggesting there are very enjoyable ways of having the PCs work at a cross purpose where constantly shuffled under the rubric of "the notion of gaming groups." He certainly paid lip service to the fact that people might have fun building a group with "backstabbing" PCs -- but the truth is, that's not what anyone else was really talking about. And all efforts to introduce a new point of view on this matter were rebuffed with a general "Well, in my experience, it doesn't work." This despite the fact that the behaviors he was describing (either from the PCs or the Players) didn't at all fit the behaviors everyone was describing.

I truly think this all belongs under my current obsession of "Getting It." Six people say, "No, I don't think you understand what we're talking about." One guy says, "No, I know exactly what you're talking about, stop telling me I'm wrong for not enjoying that style of play."

I mean, here's a quote from the good Dr. "I have no trouble imagining it -- I have played in Vampire: The Masquerade and other competitive RPG playing. I have no trouble envisioning it." Is the playing style of Vampire *anything* like Alyria? Nope. But Doc's played the nonsense that can be V:tM, and so knows he's not going to like that.

The fact that he never once entertained the possibility that, no, he really didn't fully get what everyone was saying (and agreeing upon) and approach the conversation with curiosity instead of digging trenches was annoying enough. And then had the gall to come back and lecture people on how to disagree with him because it was just his opinion that he didn't like games that turned players into the characters form KotDT. And then shows up with a treasure from Mike that certainly wasn't news to anyone here -- but he felt somehow was finishing his point...

No. I was being snarky, sarchastic, and no one owes the man apology.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Here's one magic trick I found with little effort:
"I personally prefer, for myself, with no universal statements about what anyone else is allowed to prefer, in my own tastes, personally, ~I~ prefer cooperative PC gaming over competitive PC playing, especially when I am acting as a game master. For a good example of the sort of situations I try to avoid, take a look at almost any Knights of the Dinner Table comic book."
The fact that he "personally" doesn't like styles of play where PCs are competative has nothing to do with the fact that he somehow elides competive PCs into the fighting, annoying players from KotDT.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: This was always the issue: not whether or not he liked a certain style of play, but his insistant, sometimes explcit, sometimes implicit, joining of PCs working at cross-purposes with a competition beween players.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Then in the following post wrote, "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." Later he wrote, "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."

Christopher Kubasik wrote: The fact that he never once entertained the possibility that, no, he really didn't fully get what everyone was saying (and agreeing upon) and approach the conversation with curiosity instead of digging trenches was annoying enough.

Okey-dokey.

Christopher

joshua neff wrote: And I'm sorry if I misinterpreted some of your posts before.

Wow, Doc, by the time you were complaining about everyone putting words in your mouth I had made one, and only one, post about your statements.

Yet somehow they echoed "repeatedly and consistently" throughout the thread.

My words have the power of Moses.

I am a lucky man.

Er, Christopher, Dr. Xero... you guys do both realize this has gotten a bit out of control here, right? I'm not Ron or Clinton, but I don't think there's anything constructive to get out of this conversation at this point, at least without a bit of a cooling off period first.

Rich

Roger,

I'm gone.

You're right, Rich.

I'm finished setting the record straight for whoever peruses this thread ten years from now,
and I intend to avoid if possible ever taking part in something like this again.

See you in other threads where this doesn't happen! ^_^

Doctor Xero