A Player vs Player approach: Co-authorship

[Big J Money]

One scenario that recurs from time to time in D&D is the "player vs player" scenario. One PC wishes to steal from another, or from the group, or perhaps a PC doesn't like the way another PC is treating an NPC... sometimes this can even come down to vigilantism and killing. There are lots of different motivations players have for getting into these situations in the first place, too; it's not all the same kind of player. And there are lots of ways DMs and groups deal with such situations.

Anyway, here is something I was thinking about this morning.

D&D is a lot like a live play where each player gets to be author, director and actor all in one. Well, at least over their own their own character. The DM is special in that he "gets everything else", including what goes on the stage.

And part of what really appeals to players is this idea that there are "no limits" to this PC authorship; they can literally have their PC do whatever they desire. When they act "against" the DM and his NPCs, we just roll dice to see the outcome. The DM doesn't (normally) take this personally; in fact it's a big part of the game since the PCs are the protagonists.

So what happens when players author PC behavior that affects another PC, or the party, in a way that those player authors don't like? D&D has always left this matter virtually untouched*.

I think this is where the "no limits on your actions" meets its end. Just as if multiple authors were working together on a novel or play, they would have to come to an agreement to finish the story, I think players could realize there is this outer limit of control of their own character wherever it meets the other PCs in the party.

Players shouldn't be afraid to speak up when another PC's actions would alter their own in a way they don't like; before any dice are rolled. Then the two opposing sides can work out a way to co-author the situation so that both sides are happy, and any dice are rolled if necessary. This must happen out of character. It requires a certain level of maturity; the ability to cooperate and compromise with others on where you have personal interest at stake. You have to remind yourself that everyone's fun is the primary goal of the game anyway.

But I must admit that this method can hurt a dynamic that some game groups expect, which is the "always resolve the story in-character". I can respect this method of play because it's very improv-ey. Some players really like the actor aspect of roleplaying and don't want to break the flow. It would be like if you had an improv play and suddenly one of the actors stepped out of character and said "Wait, wait; I don't like what you're acting out here. Let's talk about it."

My take on this is that the latter method is a privilege, not a right. All players have a right to have their wishes respected and to have the opportunity for fun. In a game where the players are mature, and learn how to resolve their conflicts and get on the same page, then the ability to always "stay in character" will naturally develop. It might take some time to get there if some players have very different expectations at the start, but I believe it can be done. I prioritize fun and honesty about whether one is having fun above staying in character. And I think the above out-of-character approach is more fair than the forced in-character approaches I've seen DMs use over the years to try and resolve PvP conflicts.

Another advantage is that it's super easy for a DM to communicate this method of inter-party conflict resolution to everyone before you start a campaign. "You're in control of your character, but not the other players' characters. If your PCs try to affect each other in ways that you guys don't like, then you need to talk it out until you have altered your actions in a way that makes everyone happy and we can continue role-playing. Have fun, but also be kind and respectful authors of your characters."

So I haven't given any concrete examples of how a co-authorship scenario would play out yet, but I have thought of them. This post is already long enough and I want to read what people think about this, and then I'll reply with some. Or you can post your own scenarios from games you were in and I can respond with how I would play out each side as a player, using co-authorship.

* -- Older editions had the indirect (and insufficient) approach of not allowing chaos-aligned members into the party. I think the idea was that a DM could always discourage such PC action by telling the PC that their behavior was chaotic. Also caveat: I haven't read 5th edition.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I dig this idea, absolutely. Just because you rolled well on your die roll doesn't mean you get to control someone else's character or infringe on their fun.

 

[delericho]

In general, it's possible to play the 'jerk' character in such a way as to increase fun for everyone at the table (see Wolverine in the first X-Men film) or in such a way as to reduce fun.

In general, I deal with PvP issues by making it clear to players that I expect them to play according to the first style. If they insist on playing a jerk who ruins everyone else's fun then they're out of the group. And "I was just playing my character" isn't a valid excuse - you choose your character, so if you're thinking of that character you should choose differently.

The other measure I've adopted is to ban 'secret' actions. If you want your thief to steal from the party then that's fine - but you have to declare the action in front of everyone at the table. Funnily enough, that seems to have enough of a cooling effect to eliminate lots of problems. Or maybe I'm just lucky.

(Equally, of course, the player of the character you've stolen from is expected to roleplay accordingly - if his character doesn't know, he should act as though he doesn't know. But that's a slightly different issue.)

 

[Big J Money]

To play devil's advocate, that's a relatively extreme examples; actual jerks. What about the more common example of a misunderstanding?

Example: Group has been playing well together for weeks. Now the Fighter says "I'm not going into that tomb, there are undead there!" On the character's sheet is listed a phobia of undead. The player isn't trying to be a jerk; he's roleplaying the character how he believes is correct. But, the group isn't going to get the antidote that will heal the princess unless they go in; and they need the fighter. Two of the other players are now upset, and in character they're voting that they let the fighter go as a coward. And the fighter's player is upset because he's going to potentially lose a character he's come to love.

My take is that a good way to resolve is to get the groups to talk to each other and find out what they want. Then come up with a way forward. The fighter's player needs to understand that the current way he's playing his character's phobia is leading to a situation in the game that's unacceptable to other players (giving up on the quest). The other players need to understand that forcing the fighter into the dungeon leads to a situation that's unacceptable to the player (going into a place with undead). And with this understanding they need to come up with a compromise if they want to maintain the fun of the group. Some groups are so well-oiled they can do that in-character. But I've been in groups that can't.

 

[Nagol]

To play devil's advocate, that's a relatively extreme examples; actual jerks. What about the more common example of a misunderstanding?

Example: Group has been playing well together for weeks. Now the Fighter says "I'm not going into that tomb, there are undead there!" On the character's sheet is listed a phobia of undead. The player isn't trying to be a jerk; he's roleplaying the character how he believes is correct. But, the group isn't going to get the antidote that will heal the princess unless they go in; and they need the fighter. Two of the other players are now upset, and in character they're voting that they let the fighter go as a coward. And the fighter's player is upset because he's going to potentially lose a character he's come to love.

My take is that a good way to resolve is to get the groups to talk to each other and find out what they want. Then come up with a way forward. The fighter's player needs to understand that the current way he's playing his character's phobia is leading to a situation in the game that's unacceptable to other players (giving up on the quest). The other players need to understand that forcing the fighter into the dungeon leads to a situation that's unacceptable to the player (going into a place with undead). And with this understanding they need to come up with a compromise if they want to maintain the fun of the group. Some groups are so well-oiled they can do that in-character. But I've been in groups that can't.

In that case, the DM is being the jerk (if he knew the extent of the phobia) or the Fighter player is being a jerk by refusing to participate in an expected endeavour (if the DM didn't).

The player has many ways to approach dealing with self-imposed non-game mechanic restrictions. If the player responds by reacting in a way that shuts down the group's goal, he is being a jerk. A better approach would be raising a stink for minute to spotlight the issue and then agreeing to go in despite the phobia for the group/responsibility/whatever and maybe change the marching order a bit.

If such character traits have be encouraged in the group and the DM knows of them and how extreme they are then he should avoid creating bottlenecks where party goals are placed behind such barriers unless the group is OK with partial parties/split groups/alternate characters.

In games where such traits have game mechanical value (like Hero) then the DM should vet characters to verify the traits are not too extreme to make the campaign fail and the scenarios to validate the traits are appearing with appropriate frequency.

 

[Nagol]

I don't think the basic thrust of the OP would work in my group.

We have no inherent 'right to be played' for a character and its behaviour -- especially toward NPCs -- isn't subject to other player intrusion.

The group works through disagreements in-character and if that means A won't work with B any more then the group figures out which jerk character to expel. If a player provides too many jerk characters, the player risks expulsion.

Players can and do ask if mannerisms or traits can be toned down if they are found to be grating, but the owning player has discretion as to what changes if any are accepted. He should be aware the group may abandon the PC if the traits makes the situation overly difficult.

 

[Big J Money]

I don't think there's a reason to call anyone a jerk in that scenario. If you were in that gaming group would you actually start calling the other players or DM that? But you bring up a good point about the DM not paying attention to the note on the character's sheet. But this depends on the game. In a sandbox style of game, the DM placing a lair or dungeon that has undead does not necessitate the party explore it. It's more about verisimilitude (just because one player's character has undead phobia doesn't mean every dungeon should be empty of undead; in fact the opposite needs to be true for the phobia to have any meaning... the irony). In a linear, plot-driven game I agree the DM would be asking for trouble by leading the players into that situation.

"If such character traits have been encouraged in the group, and the DM knows them..." I didn't say that was the case. Only that a player decided to write some background on their character and one aspect is that the character is mortally afraid of undead. My scenario was not intended to be about the DM baiting his players only to frustrate them. In the scenario, the dungeon is simply there (sandbox) and the party has decided to explore it in order to resolve one (of many) possible quests. Once they find out undead are there, the conflict between the payers arises.

You might say that this should have been resolved during character creation, I suppose. One player was writing a detail about their character that could potentially affect the others later on, but said nothing to them about it. Maybe an indication that it's a good idea to read over everyone's character backstories before a game starts.

 

[Big J Money]

The group works through disagreements in-character

Why is that? Is it required to do it that way? What if a player said they would rather work it out OOC so they can understand the issue?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It depends if the player will eventually relent. If they're just role-playing out their fear, but then suck it up, or allow themselves to be convinced to face their fears, that's perfectly fine, provided it doesn't take long. It adds a bit of color to the game for the armored tank to be clanking in his boots at the thought of a few skeletons.

If they by no means will go into the tomb, no way, then it's just like someone blowing up the questgiver NPC and saying "I'm just role-playing my alignment, CN." They're using what's written down on their character sheet as an excuse to disrupt the game.

Example: Group has been playing well together for weeks. Now the Fighter says "I'm not going into that tomb, there are undead there!" On the character's sheet is listed a phobia of undead. The player isn't trying to be a jerk; he's roleplaying the character how he believes is correct.

 

[Nagol]

I don't think there's a reason to call anyone a jerk in that scenario. If you were in that gaming group would you actually start calling the other players or DM that?

Probably. "Don't be a jerk; you know we're on a quest to save the princess. Do you have another PC you want to tag along? No? Do you have another idea of how to accomplish this step? No? What are you (the player acting as a roadblock) going to do to get us past this because we're going in. If this isn't an amicable parting, the Fighter isn't likely to remain part of the team."

But you bring up a good point about the DM not paying attention to the note on the character's sheet. But this depends on the game. In a sandbox style of game, the DM placing a lair or dungeon that has undead does not necessitate the party explore it. It's more about verisimilitude (just because one player's character has undead phobia doesn't mean every dungeon should be empty of undead; in fact the opposite needs to be true for the phobia to have any meaning... the irony). In a linear, plot-driven game I agree the DM would be asking for trouble by leading the players into that situation.

The original scenario had a goal kept on the other side of a bottleneck that was causing a problem for a specific player. In a sandbox campaign this is only problematic if the players want to accomplish that particular goal. If the players do want to accomplish that particular goal then they had best plan how they are going to do that. If a PC raises objections during the planning, the group has to hash out what is important to it and how it can accommodate different desires. If in the end, it cannot meet everyone's needs then something has to give.

"If such character traits have been encouraged in the group, and the DM knows them..." I didn't say that was the case. Only that a player decided to write some background on their character and one aspect is that the character is mortally afraid of undead. My scenario was not intended to be about the DM baiting his players only to frustrate them. In the scenario, the dungeon is simply there (sandbox) and the party has decided to explore it in order to resolve one (of many) possible quests. Once they find out undead are there, the conflict between the payers arises.

If such character traits haven't been encouraged and the DM doesn't know of them then the Fighter player has definitely entered jerk territory. Adding such restrictions to expected world elements without getting the group's initial agreement is setting up a in-game confrontation.

You might say that this should have been resolved during character creation, I suppose. One player was writing a detail about their character that could potentially affect the others later on, but said nothing to them about it. Maybe an indication that it's a good idea to read over everyone's character backstories before a game starts.

No. This isn't the group's problem. This is the individual player's problem. What is important is if player A decides to give traits to his PC that can compromise how the character responds in-game then player A needs to be able to respond appropriately and have alternate suggestions ready so the PC can (a) do his job, (b) not become so disruptive that people who are putting their lives on the line by working with him are willing to continue doing so, and (c) step aside when he can't in a way that doesn't substantially disadvantage the group ("Guys, you know I can't face undead. I've tried, but I just can't. Don't worry though. I've found a fil-in. He comes highly recommended and is willing to work for my share.").

It only becomes the group's problem when the disruptive player fails to do a, b, and c.