Moral Choices in RPGs

[MGibster]

For the vast majority of games I run, I expect the PCs to be good guys. Well, more or less. While they don't have to be paragons of goodness, they're not going to side with slavers, shoot nuns, steal from orphans, or talk on their cell phones during movies. But when I typically write my scenarios, I do so with the assumption that the PCs want to do the right thing. Yes, that has bitten me in the butt on more than one occasion. The thread on Twilight 2000 has me seriously thinking of purchasing the game and I find it difficult to think about post apocalyptic games without thinking of the Fallout series of computer games. Well, at least the first two games in the franchise.

For those of you unfamiliar with Fallout (the both of you), the game is set in California many years in the future decades after nuclear war has devastated the planet. Your character is a vault dweller, the descendant of those who went into fallout shelters to keep society alive until such a time as they could return to the surface. Your character goes on a series of quests to recover a much needed spare part for your home to survive and on your journeys you can be a cold hearted killer and thief or a paragon of virtue. At the end of the game, the narrator tells you the long term results of your choices during game play.

And now I'm thinking of following a similar model for a Twilight 2000 campaign. I would set up the scenarios without assuming the characters will do the right thing or the wrong thing. If they hear cries of help over the radio from a settlement under attack from raiders what will the PCs do? They can ignore it, they can help the settlers, they can help the raiders, or maybe they wait until the battle is over, go mop up whoever is left, and then take the spoils of war for themselves. I'll just let their choices shape the future of the campaign. If they help the settlers, maybe they gain new friends who are able to help out with some food a few months down the road. If they help the raiders, maybe they get some new friends who help them pick some juicy targets in the future. If they defeat both the settlers and the raiders, they get a short term boost to their supplies, weapons, and ammunition.

The thing is, I don't want to punish the player characters for doing the "wrong" thing or necessarily reward them for doing the "right" thing. I just want their actions to have an impact on the flow of the campaign. And and the end of the campaign I'd have an opportunity to tell them the long term impact of their choices. Does that sound like fun?

 

[Umbran]

And now I'm thinking of following a similar model for a Twilight 2000 campaign. I would set up the scenarios without assuming the characters will do the right thing or the wrong thing. If they hear cries of help over the radio from a settlement under attack from raiders what will the PCs do? They can ignore it, they can help the settlers, they can help the raiders, or maybe they wait until the battle is over, go mop up whoever is left, and then take the spoils of war for themselves.

So, I haven't seen the new edition, but I played the original, back in the day.

My memory is of a game that was... a lot of bean counting and resource management. Resources tight enough that PCs were very, very reticent to stick their necks out unless they had to. Heroes need not apply - they waste too much ammunition and fuel. Villains also need not apply, because they waste what little goodwill can be had in a resource-constrained environment.

Make sure the rules support the characters actually having a choice in the matter.

The thing is, I don't want to punish the player characters for doing the "wrong" thing or necessarily reward them for doing the "right" thing. I just want their actions to have an impact on the flow of the campaign. And and the end of the campaign I'd have an opportunity to tell them the long term impact of their choices. Does that sound like fun?

As above - I found the game quickly became about risk and payoff, and very little to do with people.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I never impose moral choices, other than a general ban on murder hoboes.

Nothing is duller than OoC debates about morality. Why a PC risks his life is a personal choice.

Over the years, my players' in-game value system has been based on the four pillars of: petty-mindedness, spite, greed, and illogical reactions to random NPCs; this cuts across all settings.

 

[Voadam]

Sounds like you are describing a sandbox style with things going on and places to see but freedom as PCs to go different directions or approaches with things. My view is that normally a gaming group gets on mostly the same page as to whether they want to be heroes or vampire politics players or full on bad guys or mercenaries who go with the flow of what's in front of them. I've played in games where that was a conscious day zero discussion about whether we were going to be white or black hats this game. If there is no discussion and coordination of characters beforehand and no clear guidance from the GM in setting up characters or the consistent scenarios that hit you, you can get the paladin and the assassin in the same party but eventually there is usually a coalescing of a style for one group as everybody adjusts to each other and what is going on. Even if it is something like when I was the only good guy in an evil D&D party but we were mercenaries and I as an outnumbered and outgunned pragmatic mercenary good guy got them to work their evil against other evil in the name of profit and loot and ended up getting stuff done I'd want to do with a good party.

 

[payn]

The thing is, I don't want to punish the player characters for doing the "wrong" thing or necessarily reward them for doing the "right" thing. I just want their actions to have an impact on the flow of the campaign. And and the end of the campaign I'd have an opportunity to tell them the long term impact of their choices. Does that sound like fun?

Im running a sandbox campaign in Traveller right now. I have these situations come up often where the travellers have pretty tough choices. I dont back them in the corner to have to choose people lives if I can help it, but there are consequences to making decisions. I think the key is to have a positive and negative response to their choices. Usually, it amounts to help A and annoy B. Sometimes its pretty minor, but it can get heavy. Im assuming the post apocalypse theme is going to lean heavy so Id be mindful.

 

[MGibster]

My memory is of a game that was... a lot of bean counting and resource management. Resources tight enough that PCs were very, very reticent to stick their necks out unless they had to. Heroes need not apply - they waste too much ammunition and fuel. Villains also need not apply, because they waste what little goodwill can be had in a resource-constrained environment.

I fear bean counting and resource management might be the bugbear of many post-apocalyptic settings. And truth be told, as I've grown older I've come to despise resource management and bean counting. I don't have Twilight 2000 yet, but in Alien, which uses a similar system, they abstract resources like air, food, and even ammunition.

As above - I found the game quickly became about risk and payoff, and very little to do with people.

I'm hoping to make it about people. And probably the best thing to do is to talk about the campaign during session zero. (It's amazing how much session zero can do for people.) We can discuss expectations, what they'd like to do, and given the grim setting establish anything they don't want to see in the campaign. Out of my six regular players, only one of them would be happy with a campaign where he gets to run around shooting everyone he meets in the face.

Nothing is duller than OoC debates about morality. Why a PC risks his life is a personal choice.

I'm with you on that. In character debates can be a lot of fun though.

Even if it is something like when I was the only good guy in an evil D&D party but we were mercenaries and I as an outnumbered and outgunned pragmatic mercenary good guy got them to work their evil against other evil in the name of profit and loot and ended up getting stuff done I'd want to do with a good party.

We had a problem in the last Hell on Earth campaign I ran like that. Out of six players, there was only one with a character who was motivated to do any real good in the setting. He would often be disappointed when he wanted to investigate something and the others said, "No. We don't have any reason to do it."

I think the key is to have a positive and negative response to their choices. Usually, it amounts to help A and annoy B. Sometimes its pretty minor, but it can get heavy. Im assuming the post apocalypse theme is going to lean heavy so Id be mindful.

That make sense. I want to present situations where, yeah, if they do the morally questionable thing they might come out way ahead in something they want. And still others where if they do the wrong thing maybe it has a long term negative effect on them. And the same with good actions. I want it to be more about how their characters act versus treating their characters like game pieces.

 

[MNblockhead]

I think it would be great fun. The challenge would be writing up the end-of-campaign postlogue in such a way that it does come across as a report card. Another challenge: what if the campaign has to end prematurely? I like having results of party actions resolve in game.

As I think about it, I think it would be fun to run a campaign consisting of a number of mini-campaigns. The results of the actions of party in the first campaign set the scene for the next mini-campaign, where a new set of characters have to live in the world shaped by the prior set of characters. A cycle of three mini campaigns in a year long greater campaign would be interesting.

 

[John R Davis]

I have TW:2000 new version.
It does have bean counting.
And lots morale questions.
You are not setting out to be a hero, just to get out of the terrible situation.
Though until I play/run it, I won't really know!!

 

[Jd Smith1]

I'm with you on that. In character debates can be a lot of fun though.

True. And it creates depth.

 

[aco175]

If I am trying to flee a collapsed Europe and get back home to my family, there is a lot of moral choices that get lowered on the scale of goodness I have. May make a for a solid party where they are basically your family and if the rest of the support from your country is gone, then there are many small groups around trying to protect their own family and each becomes a collection of good and bad and less clear on if they will help or hurt you.