Big J Money
Adventurer
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.
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.