A Player vs Player approach: Co-authorship

[Nagol]

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?

That is pretty much the definition of roleplaying, isn't it? Facing conflict with the viewpoint of your character? If a player wants further OOC information, he can ask I suppose, but it is incumbent on the PC being disruptive to the group's goals to find some acceptable solution. The easiest method is for the player not to have the PC throw up walls blocking play.

 

[Celebrim]

Your thinking about this is largely on the right track, but this won't work. It is insufficient and vague.

Because if you give players the right to overrule other players actions on grounds that it effects their character in ways they don't like, then you are invariably going to end up in a situation where a player is unreasonably demanding control over another character over a tissue thin claim that the other character's actions effect them. If all sorts of problems would arise without this rule, then all sorts of problems are still going to arise with it.

Or in other words, while players should always compromise regarding their actions, it's a mistake to require it.

Or to put it even more simply, yes players should be reasonable but no amount of rules that require reasonableness can actually force a player to be reasonable.

And in general, I think you'd find it was the most disruptive players that hid the most behind this rule. Often the best recourse for dealing with disruptive play is to give that character the unvarnished consequences of his action.

 

[Big J Money]

Or to put it even more simply, yes players should be reasonable but no amount of rules that require reasonableness can actually force a player to be reasonable.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it as a rule; it's just an approach to dealing with conflict. It's interesting that you see this as a requirement. I see it as the opposite. Freedom from a group or DM that requires the players to engage in role-playing and/or rolling dice when they don't feel comfortable with what's going on. I suggest a group allow players the ability to say "no, I'm not comfortable with that, let's work together and come up with something else."

Often the best recourse for dealing with disruptive play is to give that character the unvarnished consequences of his action.

How would you apply this to the scenario mentioned above? Do you mean that the players who wish to enter the dungeon vote to kick the fighter PC out of the party? What if that makes those players feel bad and now they can't look that other player in the face? I think it puts them in a position of feeling like they're punishing another player in order to solve a conflict of interests.

Sometimes you can identify a player as consistently disruptive and an obvious source of problems for a group. Other times it's a good group of people having a misunderstanding. Is it really better to use the game to punish people than to set the expectation that players (and the DM) can work out their differences?

 

[Big J Money]

That is pretty much the definition of roleplaying, isn't it? Facing conflict with the viewpoint of your character?

I don't know, that's like asking "isn't that the point of basketball, to get the ball through the hoop?" after raising one team's hoop an additional 5 feet. Yeah, facing conflict is (one of) the purposes of role-playing; facing conflict that's fun. The OP is about what to do when the conflicts aren't fun but distracting. I'm reading you as saying people should role-play no matter what, even if they aren't enjoying it.

 

[Celebrim]

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it as a rule; it's just an approach to dealing with conflict. It's interesting that you see this as a requirement. I see it as the opposite. Freedom from a group or DM that requires the players to engage in role-playing and/or rolling dice when they don't feel comfortable with what's going on. I suggest a group allow players the ability to say "no, I'm not comfortable with that, let's work together and come up with something else."

Allow? How are you going to make someone play if they don't want to play? Tie them to their chair and withhold pizza until they agree to address the scene?

If it's not a table rule, but merely a suggestion, I'm not sure you've discovered anything novel. You 'co-authorship' approach is marked by what that is different exactly?

How would you apply this to the scenario mentioned above?

So the scenario plays something like this:

Bob: "I'm not going down there. There are dead things. The living do not belong with the dead."
Jim: "But Sir Regnar, we must save the Princess! You said yourself, the living do not belong with the dead. We must rescue her!"
Bob (who has simply wanted to create IC justification for acting out of character): "You are right Brother Tomas. I must face my fear for the Princess sake. But have your Holy Symbol ready! May the light of Showna protect us!"

Or

Bob: "I'm not going down there. There are dead things. The living do not belong with the dead."
Jim: "But Sir Regnar, we must save the Princess! You said yourself, the living do not belong with the dead. We must rescue her!"
Bob: "To Hades with the Princess. She's already dead anyway. What purpose is there in sacrificing our lives as well."
Jim: "Ok, if you feel that way. Stay here with the mules. The rest of us will go one without you, but don't expect a share of the treasure. You'll be missed."
Bob (thinking it over): "And leave me here in this graveyard alone. I think not! Wait for me!"

OR

Bob: "I'm not going down there. There are dead things. The living do not belong with the dead."
Jim: "But Sir Regnar, we must save the Princess! You said yourself, the living do not belong with the dead. We must rescue her!"
Bob: "To Hades with the Princess. She's already dead anyway. What purpose is there in sacrificing our lives as well."
Jim: "You know... you may just have a point. Why are we doing the King's business anyway? The Princess was always a vain twit anyway. Let's buy a ship and be pirates.
Bob: "Rrrr, matey."

OR

Bob: "I'm not going down there. There are dead things. The living do not belong with the dead."
Jim: "But Sir Regnar, we must save the Princess! You said yourself, the living do not belong with the dead. We must rescue her!"
Bob: "To Hades with the Princess. She's already dead anyway. What purpose is there in sacrificing our lives as well."
Jim: "Ok, if you feel that way. Stay here with the mules. The rest of us will go one without you, but don't expect a share of the treasure. You'll be missed."
Bob: "Ok."

Do you mean that the players who wish to enter the dungeon vote to kick the fighter PC out of the party?

I'm supposed to stop them? How?

What if that makes those players feel bad and now they can't look that other player in the face?

Then maybe they shouldn't have done it.

I think it puts them in a position of feeling like they're punishing another player in order to solve a conflict of interests.

Here you have a binary conflict of interests. Either the character will engage with what the rest of the party is doing, or he will choose not to. Either the party will decide to abandon the quest, or they won't. If 'Bob' chooses not to play, he can stay and watch everyone else play when they choose to go on without him. Perhaps he can run a henchmen with fewer qualms. I'm not going to make anyone play, nor for that matter can I actually make anyone play. But for that matter, just because 'Bob' insists on dividing the party doesn't mean I the GM can facilitate that by dividing my time equally between Bob and the rest of the players. Bob may actually be choosing to be bored, and there isn't much I can do about that.

If Sir Regnar feels punished, that's unreasonable considering it should be a relief to Sir Regnar to not have to go into the dungeon. If Bob feels punished, Bob is taking this too personally. If Bob doesn't like the fact that Sir Regnar's phobia of dead things is hampering his play, maybe Bob should play a character that isn't phobic of dead things.

Is it really better to use the game to punish people than to set the expectation that players (and the DM) can work out their differences?

Just because you 'allow' players to work things out OOC doesn't mean that they can or want to. I really meant it when I said I don't think you've discovered anything here. OOC communication can be useful for signaling to another player how you want a scene to play out or for when the player just can't play out the scene for some reason and would prefer to resolve it in a less graphic way, but it's pretty much never a solution to problems of incompatible desires. If anything, going OOC makes it worse, because you end up with various versions of: "If you want to be my friend, you'll do this." It's almost never a good idea to make an IC problem personal.

 

[Nagol]

I don't know, that's like asking "isn't that the point of basketball, to get the ball through the hoop?" after raising one team's hoop an additional 5 feet. Yeah, facing conflict is (one of) the purposes of role-playing; facing conflict that's fun. The OP is about what to do when the conflicts aren't fun but distracting. I'm reading you as saying people should role-play no matter what, even if they aren't enjoying it.

If people aren't enjoying a group activity, by all means discuss with others what you don't like. It is the responsibility of the outliers in any group to take remedial action. Roleplaying is a social activity. A PC can be constructed with traits, but the player needs to understand where the group behavioural expectations lie and colour inside those lines when portraying them.

There is a difference between a trait and the action a PC takes because of it. A player can almost always play true to the trait without blocking the table. If A is doing something that annoys B and C because of some internal reason ("I'm playing my alignment!/My character wouldn't do that!/I won't hurt animals even if they're imaginary!") then A has to be the prime motivator of any solution because there is a simple in-game solution: leave the annoyance behind.

In my group's case, players can bring in anything they want. But they all understand if the fit with the rest of the PCs is poor they'll likely be without a party and be forcibly retired to NPC status. Anyone new joining the group is told the expectations up front. If they are uncomfortable with how the group operates, they can petition for a change, agree to play, or walk away from the table since it is a bad fit.

Take the case of two wizards A and B:

A liked using AoE damage spells pretty much to the exclusion of other castings. Words were exchanged. Eventually, the meleers were done taking more damage from friendly fire than their enemies inflicted and action was taken. A stopped being a problem for the group.

B was another caster. A one point B tossed a fireball into the melee and after the combat words were exchanged. B was able to show why he felt it was tactically advantageous in this particular case and the party discussed the parameters for legitimate uses of friendly fire. B went on to have a long career in the group.

Same player played A and B.

 

[Big J Money]

@Celebrim

Okay, I think what I'm reading is that our experiences are very different. Your example has no OOC interaction, whereas in the different groups I've played or DMed with, most of us turn to OOC communication naturally and often during the course of the game (whether there's a conflict of player interest or not). I have on rarer occasion also been in groups where players tried to work out player differences IC, and that has always (in my experience) turned out poorly, with people mad at each other but not willing to talk about it.

Which is one of the reasons I made my post.

"[going OOC is] pretty much never a solution to problems of incompatible desires. If anything, going OOC makes it worse, because you end up with various versions of: 'If you want to be my friend, you'll do this.'"

That's a very bold statement! I think without some examples and evidence I can't accept your premise that the nature of open communication between people makes problems worse. Unless at least one person is unwilling to do it and the other person is forcing them to. But the same could be said of the first person; that they are forcing the second to resolve an issue through the role-playing itself.

You do realize that a conflict between characters and a conflict between players are orthogonal concepts, right? A group could choose resolve all character conflicts IC while choosing to resolve player conflicts OOC. IME they're often intertwined (a player conflict arises from a character conflict), but I see no reason they can't be dealt with separately.

Edit: There's another disadvantage to only solving player issues via role-playing. Often characters are unaware of the knowledge they would need to resolve the conflict that is upsetting their player. Examples: A wizard is about to fireball into a melee out of vocal range, a thief is about to pick-pocket another character who is unawares, a player is about to open the obviously trapped chest while everyone's back is turned, etc.

 

[Big J Money]

[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.

 

[Celebrim]

@Celebrim

Okay, I think what I'm reading is that our experiences are very different.

That's quite likely.

Your example has no OOC interaction...

Intentionally, because the problem has no OOC component. If the player is afraid of make believe dead things, or if the player has a qualms about whether he'd enjoy the dungeon crawling activity that is a different matter that can't be dealt with in character.

...whereas in the different groups I've played or DMed with, most of us turn to OOC communication naturally and often during the course of the game (whether there's a conflict of player interest or not). I have on rarer occasion also been in groups where players tried to work out player differences IC, and that has always (in my experience) turned out poorly, with people mad at each other but not willing to talk about it.

I find OOC communication is a bad habit. And what you've probably seen is groups that have the bad habit of doing most things OOC, and only do IC stuff when, to use the vernacular, "the gets real". I've seen that too, and it comes from the bad habit of doing most things casually OOC and treating IC as escalation reserved only when you are going to threaten something. That's dysfunctional on so many levels, but yes, I've seen it. The more functional way to play is to do must stuff IC, and only break for OOC when its clear its become personal.

To a certain extent I've still got it. I've got a couple of players that only RP within the party when they are trying to bully other party members, usually acting on information they have OOC. But I assure you, if they tried to bully the other players OOC, it would only make the problem worse.

Which is one of the reasons I made my post.

Figures.

"[going OOC is] pretty much never a solution to problems of incompatible desires. If anything, going OOC makes it worse, because you end up with various versions of: 'If you want to be my friend, you'll do this.'"

That's a very bold statement!

Lots of experience watching groups trying to iron out difficulties.

I think without some examples and evidence I can't accept your premise that the nature of open communication between people makes problems worse.

What you are actually talking about is negotiation, usually between two people with incompatible desires so that they can't both get their way. Being open and honest about the fact that you are demanding to get your way over another person's objections involves more introspection than most people have. When you have a straight up conflict like this, going OOC to try to do the negotiations isn't likely to help because often both parties are being selfish and obstinate gits. What do you think this 'open and honest communication' actually sounds like?

Rarely have I had a situation where open and honest communication was the right approach. In the current campaign the only time I can think it came up was shortly after one of my players IRL father died, and he asked me as a player if we could put a story line on hold because it was cutting too close to home. That's an example of good open and honest OOC communication involving an OOC issue that effects play. Arguing OOC over something like whether its fair to pocket treasure for yourself at the expense of the party... yeah, that never works.

You do realize that a conflict between characters and a conflict between players are orthogonal concepts, right? A group could choose resolve all character conflicts IC while choosing to resolve player conflicts OOC. IME they're often intertwined (a player conflict arises from a character conflict), but I see no reason they can't be dealt with separately.

The only practical solution is to adopt that as a hard and fast rule. In general, IC conflicts should ALWAYS be dealt with IC - and as a GM if I see that rule is being broken I'll start nudging players. Likewise, OOC problems should always be dealt with OOC, and again, as a GM I'll start nudging if that gets broken.

There's another disadvantage to only solving player issues via role-playing. Often characters are unaware of the knowledge they would need to resolve the conflict that is upsetting their player. Examples: A wizard is about to fireball into a melee out of vocal range, a thief is about to pick-pocket another character who is unawares, a player is about to open the obviously trapped chest while everyone's back is turned, etc.

Sorry, but if that sort of thing is 'upsetting their player', the problem is with them principally. People screw up IC. People act selfishly IC. Grow up and deal with that fact. People learn. But if you are arguing that people ought to act on their OOC knowledge to interrupt things IC, yeah, I can't think of a better way to anger other players than that sort of "Sorry, but would you let me run your character for you" attitude.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

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.

No, I don't think that is a good idea at all.