A Player vs Player approach: Co-authorship

[Nagol]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]

I can't say I disagree with anything there. Your approach is just different. And I'm sure it works fine for your group.

In the case of the player with wizards A and B, the co-author approach would be:

Wizard A casts fireball into a melee for the first time; the group learns that they don't like this. He tries it again later. One or more other players chime in and say, "dude, please don't play your character this way, it's going to get someone killed; why would he do that? Can he wait cast it later?"

The ball is now the wizard player's court. If he wants to work things out with them, he would A) explain why his character is doing it (maybe his wizard is dumb, maybe scared, maybe he's chaotic, maybe there is no character reason, the player just didn't know he's making other players mad, etc, etc) and b) be willing to talk alternatives

1) "Well my character is terrified, and when he is he throws fireballs; I wanted that to be his thing" The players work out together some ideas on how the nervous wizard can be portrayed but without making other players angry by constantly harming them.

2) "My wizard is barely a wizard because his int is so low; he doesn't realize what he's doing" The players suggest that he's probably smart enough to learn from the angry comments the characters made the first time he did it, and they work together on ideas for a dumb wizard that don't make the party angry

3) "Oh, I didn't even think it hurt your characters that much.... I can stop" The player simply realizes there was a misunderstanding.

All of the above can sometimes be worked out IC, of course. Some people are skilled at that and some aren't.

It works just a well in character. Almost the same words in fact. There isn't much skill required to use personal pronouns rather than "your character".

"Wizard, you caused more damage than the orcs. Why did you do that?."

<insert Wizard's response terrified/ignorant/callous/whatever>


"Wizard, you are still mailing all the melee fighters with your damage spells. You're going to cause a complete failure someday. I am not amused."

<insert Wizard's response terrified/ignorant/callous/whatever>


"No this time we mean it. Find some other way to be effective in combat."

<insert Wizard's response terrified/ignorant/callous/whatever>


"Thank you for all your efforts on the party's behalf, but we don't think the adventuring life is a good fit for you. We've tried, but your fear/stupidity/callous disregard for our safety -- despite our repeated warnings -- cannot be tolerated in the field. Here is your share of the group pot. We hope your next endeavour fares better."

OOC,
Wizard player "Really guys?"
Group "Yep. We kept warning you. You're lucky B didn't kill you in your sleep on his watch after that last stunt. His character is seriously pissed. What are you going to bring in next?"
Wizard player "A different wizard. This one will be more of a team player, I think. We need the arcane power."
Group "Sounds good. Make sure we don't have to abandon this one, will you?"

The time to use OOC conversations is when those conversations can't happen between the characters for personality or other in-game reasons. For example, if an antipathy is starting to grow between two characters and one or more players is uncomfortable with the dynamic. At that point, it isn't an in-game problem it is an out of game problem and needs to be addressed there.

"I noticed our characters are butting heads over things that don't seem worth the trouble. Any idea why? It'd be nice if you can bond as friends, what circumstance would work for that?"

 

[Big J Money]

Oh my, you really are trying to come up with a system for allowing players to play another player's character with collective or group consent.

You and I differ on what "playing a character" and "playing a role-playing game" means, then.

Well, I've tried to be charitable in my disagreement with you, but your last post misreads me in multiple places where I believe my descriptions were well-written and clear. I believe you aren't doing it intentionally, so I'll just agree to disagree with you rather than to try and continue to clarify my statements. Thanks for your input. Definitely enlightening to hear how others think of role-playing.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

Your approach could work, but requires one major assumption, that being that players are playing the game as authors rather than actors. This is a pretty rare approach in my experience. If your group prefers to play as actors then this isn't going to work at all.

 

[Celebrim]

Your approach could work, but requires one major assumption, that being that players are playing the game as authors rather than actors. This is a pretty rare approach in my experience. If your group prefers to play as actors then this isn't going to work at all.

There is an equally big issue, which is the assumption that it is not only OK to author actions for other players but that this an effective way to resolve intraparty conflict. In truth, far from being a reliably effective way to resolve intraparty conflict, in practice it is often the very source of the conflict - some player, usually one with a domineering extroverted personality, tries to take over single tactical or narrative control over the whole group.*

And sometimes that works out in the short term, but in the long term that's just a problem waiting to happen.

It's been educational watching my kids grow up and exercise their natural unstructured RPing skills. And this is fundamentally the issue that they run into time and time again. Without rules, the play invariably depends on a single primary director with players in actor stances, and depends on a large number of breaks to negotiate scene framing. And all goes well into the director or group starts authoring individual players into roles or situations that they don't want to be in. Then things get really open and honest in a hurry. And every time I'm asked to intervene and referee the conflict, I tell them the same thing: "Everyone gets to choose their own character. You aren't allowed to play someone else's character." Time and time again they try to blame the party conflict on the person who wasn't taking direction, rather than the fact that they were giving (often demeaning) direction to another player rather than letting them contribute.

So many RPG groups composed of nominal adults play the game the same way.

*Importantly, it doesn't take an RPG to observe this problem. Many or most cooperative board games end up with the same problem. One player with a more forceful personality ends up selecting the moves for everyone, leaving many of the less aggressive players feeling that they might as well not have been participating. And, they are probably right. One way to fix this would be to limit the player's meta-communication, paralleling what I'm saying here, so that a player couldn't author another players moves. This might result in the team playing less optimally, but it would avoid the problem of excluding players from roles in the game.

 

[Big J Money]

Your approach could work, but requires one major assumption, that being that players are playing the game as authors rather than actors. This is a pretty rare approach in my experience. If your group prefers to play as actors then this isn't going to work at all.

Actually, my statement is that role-playing is a unique medium, and that players take on the role of actors and authors equally and simultaneously.

Who creates the character? The player does. Who determines what course of action the character does? The player does. Actors in plays, movies and TVs are not required to define any action, they read a script written by (often entirely) another author. That's why I can't agree that players in RPGs are "only" actors. If the players aren't the co-authors of the story that's being told at the table (including the character dialogue), then who is?

Your assumption is that players have to be one or the other. My assumption is that practically speaking they have never been only one or the other. For a player to be 100% actor, you'd require multiple players playing each character. One player would determine what the PC does, and write the script. This would be the character author. The second player would act out the script. This would be the character actor. Obviously this would be an entirely different way of roleplaying than what we've been doing for years.

There's no debate about whether players are authors; they always have been. I guess the debate is exactly how they approach the authoring and how it affects the acting.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Actually, my statement is that role-playing is a unique medium, and that players take on the role of actors and authors equally and simultaneously.

Who creates the character? The player does. Who determines what course of action the character does? The player does. Actors in plays, movies and TVs are not required to define any action, they read a script written by (often entirely) another author. That's why I can't agree that players in RPGs are "only" actors. If the players aren't the co-authors of the story that's being told at the table (including the character dialogue), then who is?

Your assumption is that players have to be one or the other. My assumption is that practically speaking they have never been only one or the other. For a player to be 100% actor, you'd require multiple players playing each character. One player would determine what the PC does, and write the script. This would be the character author. The second player would act out the script. This would be the character actor. Obviously this would be an entirely different way of roleplaying than what we've been doing for years.

There's no debate about whether players are authors; they always have been. I guess the debate is exactly how they approach the authoring and how it affects the acting.

I'll agree that there's a continuum, but there certainly is debate over whether players are and should be authors or actors. There are other options as well. I've read and participated in a fair number of discussions on just that topic on various forums, and your belief that authorship is always a part of participating in an RPG is far from universal. You can find introductory essays on the topic here and here. The relevant bit of these is that folks choose to play in a variety of different ways and authorship is not always a part of a chosen approach.

 

[Big J Money]

I'll agree that there's a continuum, but there certainly is debate over whether players are and should be authors or actors. There are other options as well. I've read and participated in a fair number of discussions on just that topic on various forums, and your belief that authorship is always a part of participating in an RPG is far from universal. You can find introductory essays on the topic here and here. The relevant bit of these is that folks choose to play in a variety of different ways and authorship is not always a part of a chosen approach.

Neither of those links indicate a lack of authorship on the part of players.

Link1 talks about the Author Stance, which comes from the role-playing theory of player stances (which I'm aware of). It's unrelated to authorial control and direction. His and my meaning of author are unrelated; sorry that the terms make it extra confusing. :-/

Link2 doesn't mention authorship, but he does make this statement: "Playing a role is about making choices". Who makes the choices about what a charatcer will do? The author/writer of a character or the actor? I admit neither of these terms is completely adequate, coming from their own respective mediums. My implication is that both terms are appropriate in all cases of role playing (which I agree with Alexander is, at its heart, about making choices for a fictional character)

At this point we might just agree to disagree on semantics. You feel the term author is inappropriate, and I feel the term is necessary?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Neither of those links indicate a lack of authorship on the part of players.

Link1 talks about the Author Stance, which comes from the role-playing theory of player stances (which I'm aware of). It's unrelated to authorial control and direction. His and my meaning of author are unrelated; sorry that the terms make it extra confusing. :-/

Link2 doesn't mention authorship, but he does make this statement: "Playing a role is about making choices". Who makes the choices about what a charatcer will do? The author/writer of a character or the actor? I admit neither of these terms is completely adequate, coming from their own respective mediums. My implication is that both terms are appropriate in all cases of role playing (which I agree with Alexander is, at its heart, about making choices for a fictional character)

At this point we might just agree to disagree on semantics. You feel the term author is inappropriate, and I feel the term is necessary?

Perhaps then you could expound on what you mean by authorship. I'd assumed you were using the standard definition with respect to RPG theory and the remainder of your post seemed to support that assumption.

 

[Big J Money]

Sure, the very first, broad definition given by wikipedia works great, it turns out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author

Players are authors because they use their imagination to create PC action. I would maintain that an improv actor could also be described as an "actor/author".