The Forge Archives

Ok, so it's silly, but is it useful?  I've certainly seen a number of situations where it's given insight into why a group dynamic wasn't working.

Designing your team the Scooby way

I'm still mulling over the broader theory behind it yet.  What do others think?

Claire Bickell

Heh.  I like it.  

The wording regarding group survival almost makes it seem specific to certain kinds of play (like traditional party-based dungeon crawling) but I definitely see the larger usefulness.  I most like the tension that is clearly spelled out between cohesion/constancy and innovation/action; i.e. scooby and shaggy vs the other types.  In fact, this almost seems like a good guide not just to selecting character types, but for players or player roles!

I'd love to see a couple of examples from various types of RPGs.

Cool.  This was an old rec.games.frp.advocacy post from 1996, by the way.  I'll give a link to the http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=321C870D.64C8%40tir.com&rnum=1">original thread for reference.

In my experience, the group dynamic of the PCs has been absolutely critical to my enjoyment of campaigns.  As others in the original thread pointed out, the questionable one is Daphne.  I'm not sure she represents a particularly good archetype.  

There was a similar analysis in The Adventurer's Club (the Champions magazine) a while back.  It suggested the Leader, the Lieutenant, the Soldier, and the Rebel as the four archetypes.  I actually think Lisa's Scooby approach works better, though it can be hard to take seriously.  The interesting part of the article series ("Games With Games" by 'Collie' Collier) was when it analyzed group dynamic problems in terms of the roles.

Quote from: JasperHeh.  I like it.  

The wording regarding group survival almost makes it seem specific to certain kinds of play (like traditional party-based dungeon crawling) but I definitely see the larger usefulness.  I most like the tension that is clearly spelled out between cohesion/constancy and innovation/action; i.e. scooby and shaggy vs the other types.  In fact, this almost seems like a good guide not just to selecting character types, but for players or player roles!

Agreed.  And I think players and character can have very different roles in their respective groups.

I don't think it has to be specific to dungeon-crawling.  I think it can be relevent to any game where the characters (or groups of them) are expected to have a common goal at any point, even if they don't have a common goal most of the time.

Quote from: JasperI'd love to see a couple of examples from various types of RPGs.

Me too.  I don't have any great ones from my own experience.  The current game I play in has only 2 players, and both the PCs are Velmas by inclination.  I certainly notice problems because of it.  Which we try to solve by meta-gaming to ensure that only one PC is Velma at a time.

Hmm, so you're actually influencing or determining player role through mechanics?  Interesting.  I take it everyone is aware of the intended effect?  Id be curious as to what exact kind of mechanic you use to reinforce this sort of thing.  Is it a simple tradeoff?

John Kim:

Quote
There was a similar analysis in The Adventurer's Club (the Champions magazine) a while back. It suggested the Leader, the Lieutenant, the Soldier, and the Rebel as the four archetypes. I actually think Lisa's Scooby approach works better, though it can be hard to take seriously.

I'm inclined to say that the Scooby approach is good exactly because it's hard to take seriously; or to be more exact, it's hard to take it too serious and it's difficult to create a 1:1 copy for a specific game group. As such it's just a guideline, which can help people think about their group dynamics without offering too much of a ready-made package.

If I'd have to describe a good character group, I'd propably break it down something like this. (I'm not that familiar with Scoody Doo, so the comparisons might be inaccurate.)

- The One With Authority (Fred): needed to settle disputes and to decide on a course of action. Without him the game tends slow down and disputes turn into conflicts which damage the group. There can be only one, two at the most, if those two get along very well.

- The Curious One (a.k.a. The One Who Wants To Know) (Scooby/Shaggy/Velma): the one who asks the stupid questions and finds the trouble. Without him the group tends to become passive and reactive instead of active. This easily gets frustrating, especially for the GM. Curiosity can easily be spread throughout the group.

- The One Who Is Liked (Scooby/Shaggy/Daphne): needed to keep things together and to create that team spirit. Without him the group tends to split into smaller factions and the will to come together as a group can be lost, which can end the game or just make it increasingly difficult to keep the group together.  This role can easily spread out to all characters, making the "team mascot" unneeded; everyone just likes everyone.

- The One With Principles (Daphne/Velma): he's the one who says what should be done and what shouldn't. He starts the discussions in which the characters can reflect their inner workings. Without him, the game tends to fall into "mercenary mode"; a lot of action, but nothing really feels like anything, since the events didn't really mean that much to the characters. He also helps to bring the breath of life, turnings stats and descriptions into actual characters. If the authority is the one with principles, it's usually best that the other characters are of the more practical sort. In any case, too much principles makes everything very difficult and tensions inside the group tend to get ugly fast.

- The One Who Knows What To Do (Fred/Velma): the one who comes up with the good ideas and the solutions that actually work. Without him, the group tends to fail in it's tasks. The lack of ideas can also easily create short-term panic and long-term frustration. Knowing-what-to-do can be and very often is spread out between more than one character, but it's extremely rare to have a group in which everyone "knows what to do".


Now, to make things more interesting, I'd like to comment that groups which lack some of these parts can be really great in their dysfuncionality. I would even go as far as to say that a group which is lacking something essential often provides a better basis for good roleplaying than one which is very functional and effective. Personally I often greatly enjoy roleplaying with dysfunctional character groups, both as a player and as a GM.


I'll explain what mean:

- Without Authority the game can get slow and frustrating, but it can also get diplomatic, thoughtful and even more emotional. Without a leader the team needs to negotiate more, which usually means more talk about "what are we doing and why". More negotiations means that if a PC wants to get his way, he has to think more about what makes the other PC's tick. It can also lead to the PC going introspective to find out "what it is that I really want". Lack of Authority could be a good thing in games where "the journey is more important than the destination". Not having someone to tell them what to do can also make the characters (and the players) more active by themselves. Sometimes it's also good that the characters are not too active and fast, because it gives the situations more time to develop.

- Without Curiosity the group easily becomes more focused on action. In certain games this can be a good thing. It also tends to make a group very easy for the GM to control, even if it does mean that they tend to need occasional pushes to keep them moving. This can also help make the group work faster and more effective, which is usually a good thing in action-oriented games.

- Without Team Spirit (Likability) the group tends to argue a lot, since there is no will to play along with the others. This is sometimes highly entertaining, even if it can be catastrophic for the groups functionality. If the group has enough focus to stay together, lack of team spirit can work great in activating the characters by turning everything into a competition; after all, everyone must look after his own interests, and they also want to make sure that the others never get ahead in any way. Also, this can turn bring about a lot of entertaining arguments and interesting plot-twists through PC backstabbing. All this can be quite  intimidating for some people, but for gamers who enjoy a debate and don't mind competition, this can all be great fun. For pretty obvious reasons lack of team spirit can help flesh out each character as an individual

- Without Principles the group usually becomes more action-oriented,  more focused on solving the problems than thinking too much about what they mean. This is good if problem-solving is what the game is supposed to be about.

- Without Knowing-What-To-Do (ideas) the group can easily become stuck and harm itself through it's own stupidity; in the long run this can get very frustrating. On the other hand the lack of knowledge can turn into creativity, which can bring about the very best solutions and if nothing else, the creative "solutions" are usually very entertaining. The group can become very irrational and hard to control, even chaotic, which can be hard for the GM, even if it is fun. They strain the GM's improvisational skills, but on the other hand, they don't need that much pre-planned obstacles, since they are usually really slow in coming over even small ones. They are also great in getting trouble all by themselves. For some games, especially those of horror-genre, lack of "knowing-what-to-do" can be a great boost, even an absolute requirement. It can also be a good way to get to know a gameworld, but I'd recommend this only for experienced roleplayers.


... oh my, I only intended to give a short comment...

Quote from: JasperThe wording regarding group survival almost makes it seem specific to certain kinds of play (like traditional party-based dungeon crawling) but I definitely see the larger usefulness.  I most like the tension that is clearly spelled out between cohesion/constancy and innovation/action; i.e. scooby and shaggy vs the other types.  In fact, this almost seems like a good guide not just to selecting character types, but for players or player roles!

Actually, the underlying principle (as I see it) is applicable to nearly any game, even ones without a party basis. I think the reason the "Scooby way" or similar approaches work is that they ensure that each of the characters in a group acts as a foil for another. Characters are most powerfully revealed through action, and dramatic action requires conflict. So if you want a character to stand out as (say) a prude, then the game must have libertines to shock him. Now, note that in a typical game, there is one GM playing many NPCs, and three of four players playing a single PC. The simple logistics of how we play mean that the other players can offer the strongest foils for a PC.

Hello,

It seems to me that the Scooby concept represents a reasonable and easily-understood subset of the points I outlined in The class issue. Others that might be interesting include:
Too many choices
Volatile and non-volative traits (for want of better terms)
Template-based character generation
Item collecting

Best,
Ron

It speaks to some of the unspoken contract between players, too.  

The "Shaggy" player may enjoy getting his character into jams (wandering off to raid the fridge), with the expectation that "Fred" or "Velma" will extricate them from the jam later on.  

The only thing I really see missing from this analogy is that no one in the Mystery Machine team is particularly angst-ridden, and thus there is no analog for the character who exists in order to play out their anguish.    Maybe if Daphne had a terrible unrequited love for the (hopelessly gay) Fred?  

Danny

Quote from: DannyKIt speaks to some of the unspoken contract between players, too.  

The "Shaggy" player may enjoy getting his character into jams (wandering off to raid the fridge), with the expectation that "Fred" or "Velma" will extricate them from the jam later on.  

The only thing I really see missing from this analogy is that no one in the Mystery Machine team is particularly angst-ridden, and thus there is no analog for the character who exists in order to play out their anguish.    Maybe if Daphne had a terrible unrequited love for the (hopelessly gay) Fred?  

Danny

Shaggy is the angsty one. He eats when he's upset.
You made a good point in your first paragraph, though. My admitedly limited experience playing Elfs has generated a couple of similar group dynamics.
Right now, I'm taking "Intro to Social Psych," and I'm finding some interesting applications to rpg groups. One theory of roles, advanced by iirc George Herbert Meade, separates members of a group into Instrumental (task based) and Expressive (socio-emotional support) roles. In the typical rpg system, rules tend to focus on the Instrumental roles (the fighter, the wizard, the speedster, the brick, the skillmonkey, et cetera), while Expressive roles are left up to the informal interactions of the players.

O.K., I'm too old for Scooby Doo. Never watched it; I can recognize the faces, but the only ones to which I can put names are Shaggy and Scooby. So maybe I'm way off base here.

However, something bothered me about it; and reading Risto's analysis has focused what it is for me.

It seems to me that this is really a lot less about who the characters are and a lot more about who the players are. We've all encountered players who naturally take charge, players who are always getting in trouble or wandering off, players who are peacemakers in the group, players who have ideas for how to do things--did I miss one? I think that in this sense, most players fall into the same role rather naturally, unless they make an extreme effort not to do so (and even then, if they're playing with the same group, they'll often find themselves pushed into it).

I also think that  some of these roles are conflicted. The leader and the troublemaker are going to be at odds with each other, because the leader thinks that everyone should work together to meet the objectives (whatever they are) and the troublemaker thinks that everyone should let him do his own thing. So I see a lot of social conflict here.

But then, I never watched the show, so I might be completely off base.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young:

Quote
It seems to me that this is really a lot less about who the characters are and a lot more about who the players are. We've all encountered players who naturally take charge, players who are always getting in trouble or wandering off, players who are peacemakers in the group, players who have ideas for how to do things--did I miss one? I think that in this sense, most players fall into the same role rather naturally, unless they make an extreme effort not to do so (and even then, if they're playing with the same group, they'll often find themselves pushed into it).

We are getting into the field of group dynamics (or what ever you call it), which has been studied quite a bit... and I haven't really read that stuff.

But I would like to challenge the idea that it's about the players, based on personal experience. I'd be more inclined to say that certain players play characters in certain roles better, which is one reason they like to play them, but it's not even that simple. A persons (real of fictional) role in a group is highly dependant on the group, and even on the situation. The one who knows what to do in a current situation is easily set up as a leader, and the one who is most unfamiliar with it easily starts to be the one with the questions. The addition of a new leader might change all the roles in the group. Some players and characters are more inclined for some roles, but I'd still say that at least with experienced players it's more about the character.

For example, recently in a Praedor game my grim veteran mercenary died and I joined the group later on with a young noble wanna-be-adventurer. This changed my role in the group completely from know-it-all authority to a wanna-know mascot. It used to be nodoby messed with my character, in fact they were often afraid to talk to him. Now my character gets constant ridicule and the others shamelessly exploit his noble pride and inexperience.

By my definition, good roleplayers are able to think more of the character and less of the player.

I like it. Sometimes theories can become bogged down and too complex to be useful. This is nice and simple. So simple, even my players can understand it.

I agree with John Kim that Daphne is not a strong archetype. Apart from that, great post!

Quote from: M. J. YoungIt seems to me that this is really a lot less about who the characters are and a lot more about who the players are. We've all encountered players who naturally take charge, players who are always getting in trouble or wandering off, players who are peacemakers in the group, players who have ideas for how to do things--did I miss one?  I think that in this sense, most players fall into the same role rather naturally, unless they make an extreme effort not to do so (and even then, if they're playing with the same group, they'll often find themselves pushed into it).

Well, I only partly agree.  Yes, I think that most players have a limited range of roles they can play.  But I think a lot of people can vary between a Shaggy and a Scooby, or between a Daphne and a Fred, and so forth.  Some people can vary pretty widely.  And moreover, I think it is very interesting for people to push their ranges.  

I mean, that's the interesting part of "role reversal" in psychological terms, isn't it?  i.e. Having the mousy person become the leader and the leader have to play the mousy person.  Now, go too far and it doesn't work.  But when done carefully I think it is a very interesting and powerful experience.  In games I have played, the choice of characters has clearly affected the in-game group dynamic.  

Quote from: M. J. YoungI also think that  some of these roles are conflicted. The leader and the troublemaker are going to be at odds with each other, because the leader thinks that everyone should work together to meet the objectives (whatever they are) and the troublemaker thinks that everyone should let him do his own thing. So I see a lot of social conflict here.  

I agree, but you seem to imply that is a bad thing.  Shaggy is the rebel to Fred's leadership.  Scooby never wants to do as he is told.  This was explicitly addressed in the Champions article which had "Rebel" as one of the archetypes.  In diagnosing problems, it suggested that lack of a Rebel made group dynamics dull.  I consider conflict among the PCs a good thing.  In general this should be tension rather than, say, violent conflict.  But relationships without conflict aren't very interesting.

John Kim said:

Quote from: M. J. YoungI also think that  some of these roles are conflicted. The leader and the troublemaker are going to be at odds with each other, because the leader thinks that everyone should work together to meet the objectives (whatever they are) and the troublemaker thinks that everyone should let him do his own thing. So I see a lot of social conflict here.  

I agree, but you seem to imply that is a bad thing.  Shaggy is the rebel to Fred's leadership.  Scooby never wants to do as he is told.  This was explicitly addressed in the Champions article which had "Rebel" as one of the archetypes.  In diagnosing problems, it suggested that lack of a Rebel made group dynamics dull.  I consider conflict among the PCs a good thing.  In general this should be tension rather than, say, violent conflict.  But relationships without conflict aren't very interesting.[/quote]

It speaks to the social piece I mentioned earlier, too.  Even the "rebel" is in general agreement that the team is there to investigate; I've never seen an episode where Shaggy says:

QuoteScrew you, Fred.  I'm taking Scooby and getting my own van.  And we're going to Vegas for the free breakfasts.

I would also point out, from a metagame perspective, that the "rebel" character usually advances the group agenda, too -- the monster usually attacks Shaggy and Scooby right when they sneak into the kitchens for a snack.  The "looseness" of that character allows him to trigger events that the more cagy, goal-focused characters wouldn't get themselves into.  In other words, a little rebellion is a good thing for the story development.  

DannyK