Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Umbran]

This is a tangential rant, but this is the biggest problem I foresee with FATE. When I play an RPG, I try to achieve a very naturalistic style where the rules don't intrude and are mentioned as little as possible. What I'm going for is something 'theatrical' in the emulation of drama, that has a tactical sub-game you drop into to resolve the action scenes.

Fair enough. One point to make, though...

We are discussing this in extreme detail, stating all bits explicitly, because several people are not familiar with the game. And it may kind of play clumsily like this as folks are new to it. Just like when folks are new to D&D, they may have to say, "I attack... and I have this feat, and my sword is +2, and he's flanked...." And that slows play down and is intrusive.

But, as player familiarity with the system rises, in practice things aren't bad. Everyone at the table becomes familiar with the characters, and play progresses pretty smoothly and unobtrusively. Except in very tense situations (like a fight), folks aren't invoking and passing Fate points back and forth every three seconds or anything. That, at least, is my experience. The problem you foresee doesn't arise much in practice. YMMV, of course.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, IME... I have Fate and enjoy it upon occasion, but I am only ever willing to play it with certain people in my wider gaming group and so it tends to get limited play among us. I think to pull off a good game of Fate there has to be a lot of transparency, a lot of discussion, and like @Umbran said earlier... players who can suppress their natural gamist and/or simulationist desires and set narrativism as the driving goal of the game (which for my group especially as it concerns gamism has been hard to do). Even then in our last game, an urban fantasy one-shot based loosely upon the rules for White Picket Witches and using FAE... there were plenty of "discussions" during the game that mirrored D&D's alignment discussions since aspects are so open to interpretation... it's almost unavoidable, especially when using a free-form magic system based (at least partially) around aspects as well as when players get in a bad situation and they are trying to connect any and every aspect they possibly can to the situation in order to get a chance to invoke. Even keeping genre coherent was hard at times as our game started in a drama-horror vein similar to shows like "The Gates", "The Secret Circle", "Teen Wolf", etc. and by the end seemed to lean much more towards action-horror in the vein of "Blade" or "Vampire Hunter D".

EDIT: As a side note I will say that I think Fate reads much better then it plays (I remember being really enamored with it after my first read through, but after playing it a few times I wouldn't say it ranks anywhere near my or my groups favorite games to play)... but that's just my opinion

I dont think my players think or behave in terms of GNS categories (not something i really think abiut for systems). It just seems it would clash with our style.

 

[Imaro]

I dont think my players think or behave in terms of GNS categories (not something i really think abiut for systems). It just seems it would clash with our style.

well I was more so using it as shorthand for the fact that more than a few of my players don't want to create a story outside experiencing it as their characters (they see it as... if they did want to experience the game in that fashion then they would GM). They aren't trying to construct a "story" per se (at least not in the way that Fate does it)... they want their characters to be challenged within the course of a game whether it's mentally, physically, or spiritually and want to succeed or fail at endeavors from the view point of and on the basis of the character they have chosen to play and the actions they take... and what results is the "story". Not sure if that's a more clear or less clear explanation... if not, let me know and I will try and elaborate more on it.

EDIT: In other words some just aren't that big on narrative control outside of the influence of their character (i.e. special powers, spells, etc.). while a few would probably actively game the "narrative" system of Fate to squeeze as much advantage (super-wide aspects, absurd ways to apply aspects, etc.) to "win" the game part.

 

[Nagol]

well I was more so using it as shorthand for the fact that more than a few of my players don't want to create a story outside experiencing it as their characters (they see it as... if they did want to experience the game in that fashion then they would GM). They aren't trying to construct a "story" per se (at least not in the way that Fate does it)... they want their characters to be challenged within the course of a game whether it's mentally, physically, or spiritually and want to succeed or fail at endeavors from the view point of and on the basis of the character they have chosen to play and the actions they take... and what results is the "story". Not sure if that's a more clear or less clear explanation... if not, let me know and I will try and elaborate more on it.

EDIT: In other words some just aren't that big on narrative control outside of the influence of their character (i.e. special powers, spells, etc.). while a few would probably actively game the "narrative" system of Fate to squeeze as much advantage (super-wide aspects, absurd ways to apply aspects, etc.) to "win" the game part.

Which was my experience when I played a Strands of Fate game. I had all these tools as a player that I didn't want.

I'm happy to GM that sort of game though as a player I'll likely pass next time it is offered.

 

[Celebrim]

I dont think my players think or behave in terms of GNS categories (not something i really think abiut for systems). It just seems it would clash with our style.

GNS is filled with all sorts of untruths and half-truths IMO. The biggest untruth is that a game system or session can only fulfill one agenda of play at a time, and it tries to do more than one it becomes badwrongfun. On the contrary, I believe that an RPG that fulfills only one agenda of play at a time fails as a game, because in general players don't have a single agenda of play and certainly a table of players doesn't have a single agenda of play. And there are probably some agendas of play that aren't even GNS.

(For example, I think there are some players for whom the aesthetics of play - the PnP equivalent of eye and ear candy - is at the top of their agenda. They want to participate, but their enjoyment comes out of listening to others create beauty as much as it comes out of any particular play agenda. As a GM, this agenda gets fulfilled for me when two players in the group roleplay with each other well, and speaking as a GM when that agenda is not being fulfilled it's still not a full game even when the story is advancing, the setting is realistically granular and alive, and the players are being challenged)

People who designed video games have already figured this out; GNS advanced RPG design theory for a while, but now its become a huge creative road block.

 

[Celebrim]

well I was more so using it as shorthand for the fact that more than a few of my players don't want to create a story outside experiencing it as their characters (they see it as... if they did want to experience the game in that fashion then they would GM). They aren't trying to construct a "story" per se (at least not in the way that Fate does it)... they want their characters to be challenged within the course of a game whether it's mentally, physically, or spiritually and want to succeed or fail at endeavors from the view point of and on the basis of the character they have chosen to play and the actions they take... and what results is the "story". Not sure if that's a more clear or less clear explanation... if not, let me know and I will try and elaborate more on it.

EDIT: In other words some just aren't that big on narrative control outside of the influence of their character (i.e. special powers, spells, etc.). while a few would probably actively game the "narrative" system of Fate to squeeze as much advantage (super-wide aspects, absurd ways to apply aspects, etc.) to "win" the game part.

There are several ways that giving players narrative control ultimately undermines player empowerment and wholly undermines the player goal of "story first".

First, the experience of reading a book or watching a movie is in part enjoyable because you don't really know what the story is, where it is going, or how it is going to end. You are watching because there are hidden secrets that you expect to be revealed in due course, and your enjoyment is in part derived from that. If you know what story you are agreeing to, or you are story boarding the story out ahead of time, you are reduced from the empowering experience of reading a story to the sometimes drudgery of creating one.

Secondly, if you agree to the story with everyone, well, haven't you just agreed to the story? It puts you under and obligation you don't have when you don't know what the story is. Not acting on the story you agreed to puts you in the same position you'd be in D&D if you agreed to play a character with alignment constraints and then don't live up to that. It's time to stop the story and have a discussion because something clear has gone wrong. For a game like BW, there is a massive amount of the game structure that is invested in storyboarding and reviewing the story that has just been created. Stopping and having a discussion about the story is a mechanic of play. As a player it would drive me nuts. Instead of playing, let's just work together to publish a module - it would be the same freaking experience of play and we would have something tangible to show for it at the end.

Secondly, many stories that people like have moments of triumph for the readers/audience experiences vicariously. If an RPG is to capture that experience from the perspective of being in that story, then there is a vast difference between the story of being handed an Olympic medal and earning an Olympic medal. When you hand narrative control over to a player, it's like saying, "Here, just have what you want." For many players, that's just hugely deflating. Again, it becomes like the experience of being a writer of the story and not the experience of being in the story. The experience of the writer of the story is he has the power of plot and can manipulate the circumstances for or against his characters. But that's just not the experience of the characters in the story, who have only their wherewithal to deal with the challenges that they face. To make another analogy, has anyone watched the BattleStar Galactica remake? I was initially through the first season a huge huge fan. But by the middle of the second season I stopped watching it. Why? Because as a member of the audience, the carpet got pulled out from other me in exactly this way. As long as 'The Plan' of the Cylons had been exterminate humanity, then the survival of the protagonists was something that had depended on their courage and skill, and I was rooting for them. When it was revealed that the Cylons were basically letting the Galactica win because they had a much less cool plan, I lost anyone to root for and with it, any concern over what happened. I think all too often, in the name of "narratively empowering the players", we're pulling out from under them any real depth of caring about what happens to the character. That may make sense for a game like Fiasco, but for many other sorts of games... not so much.

 

[Umbran]

GNS is filled with all sorts of untruths and half-truths IMO. The biggest untruth is that a game system or session can only fulfill one agenda of play at a time, and it tries to do more than one it becomes badwrongfun.

Agreed. The theory has its uses, but should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, applying it to individuals is probably not a good idea, IMHO.

There are several ways that giving players narrative control ultimately undermines player empowerment and wholly undermines the player goal of "story first".

First, the experience of reading a book or watching a movie is in part enjoyable because you don't really know what the story is, where it is going, or how it is going to end. You are watching because there are hidden secrets that you expect to be revealed in due course, and your enjoyment is in part derived from that. If you know what story you are agreeing to, or you are story boarding the story out ahead of time, you are reduced from the empowering experience of reading a story to the sometimes drudgery of creating one.

While there are some games that may do this, I think it is an inaccurate description of games that give players more narrative control, in general. You aren't necessarily (or even commonly) story-boarding out the whole thing in advance.

Secondly, many stories that people like have moments of triumph for the readers/audience experiences vicariously. If an RPG is to capture that experience from the perspective of being in that story, then there is a vast difference between the story of being handed an Olympic medal and earning an Olympic medal. When you hand narrative control over to a player, it's like saying, "Here, just have what you want."

And here's where I think you go a bit overboard. Narrative control isn't digital - all or nothing. There are degrees of narrative control, and giving a player a little more direct control than is seen in, say, a typical D&D game, doesn't suddenly give them everything on a silver platter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My experience is players all have very different reactions to narrative mechanics. Some love them and want robust mechanical tools toward that end, some hate them and don't want a trace in the system, and some dont mind a bit here or there. There are also people who like these mechanics for things beyond the end goal of narrative. Other wouldn't notice one way or the other if they are present. Personally, i do tend to get irked by stuff that breaks the fourth wall for me, and a lot of these narrative mechanics do that (but so do wish lists for magic items). I can handle it in small doses though or when it feels very appropriate to the genre, like in the form of bennies for example. I think it is just preference.

 

[Umbran]

My experience is players all have very different reactions to narrative mechanics. Some love them and want robust mechanical tools toward that end, some hate them and don't want a trace in the system, and some dont mind a bit here or there.

Certainly. Not everybody likes the same thing. If we did, there'd be one heck of a haggis shortage.

I like FATE, but that's not saying I use it for all my gaming now. I'm still using Classic Deadlands for the campaign I run, and it's rather baroque, and beyond a form of action point, it largely devoid of narrative control mechanics. Tnarrative control is not an end-all, be-all of game design, or anything.

Each game does some things well, and other things less well. The only trick is to figure out what you want to do, and use a game that fits the bill. Sometimes, when new games come out, it pays to try them, as they may well do things well that you never realized a game could do at all, much less do well.

 

[Sadras]

This is the bit where I think we have differences of approach. It would never occur to me, as a GM, to suggest to a player that some declared action should be withdrawn because it is out of character.

If I think the behaviour is outrageous I might say so, as might anyone else at the table - "You're doing what?!" - but that's an invitation to the player to think about what's at stake, not to ensure fidelity to a pre-established character.

Both are invitations. In my opinion you're doing it tacitly my approach is more overt. I am merely asking as DM to understand the character better not asking him to withdraw an action but to consider it, unless as DM I have understood him wrong. The difference between our approaches is superficial.

I don't have any conception of how the PC should behave in a general sense. That is up to the player. Hence I don't need a tool - alignment, personality descriptors, or anything else - to do that.

Some people do not need a battle grid for combat and prefer theatre of mind combat, hence they rejected 4e on that basis outright. Good for you not having to need the the Alignment aid as DM but can you at least be open to the idea that there are others out there (DMs and Players) that might like to use it?

My concern is that, if the GM then forms the view that the player has changed alignment, this has ramifications straight away for a paladin and cleric, and potentially for any player if the GM is running a (quite common, in my experience) "no evil PCs" campaign. Allowing the players to choose their PCs' actions but then rendering their PCs unplayable in the campaign as a result of an alignment adjudication is precisely one of the things I'm concerned about.

Is killing the orc babies to stop them growing up to be orc warriors charitable or not? It strikes me as pretty forthright at least!)

If we have to debate if the slaying of the young is an evil or good act, we will probably not agree on anything. Common sense must apply at some point in order for this debate to be meaningful.
Hypothetical: In your campaign your Paladin decides to slay orc babies so they do not grow up as evil orc warrriors, and he still envisions himself as LG - what do you do as DM?

Informed decisions are fine - this is the players knowing the backstory. My concern is with who gets to interpret what actually happens in play. Once the players have read the backstory and are playing their PCs on the basis of it, is the GM allowed to tell them that they've got it wrong?

No, why do you assume this.

I'm also confused as to why you quote the DMG saying that "the campaign world is not the GM's alone" yet also say that, "since the setting is the DM's, it is only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM". You seem to be disagreeing with what the DMG says.

The various interpretations of good and evil are part of the setting for the cultures, civilizations and deities which is all part of the setting backstory created by the DM. The DMG quote is on advice for the DM not to act as an obnoxious authoritarian when dealing with players actions but to listen to their notions or reasons for their actions and not simply dismiss them on the basis that they are players and he/she is the DM, that the game is not the DM's alone.

This strikes me as another one of those things where "the campaign world is not yours alone". If the player has chosen to play a dwarf, presumably part of what s/he is interested in is contributing to "dwarfiness" as understood in the game. If we want certain preconceptions of dwarves to be guaranteed, then build them in mechanically (eg I have no objection to the group agreeing that there are no dwarf wizards, or elven assassins).

Why does the system have to build it in mechanically? The game consists of roleplay and rollplay. I do not need numbers to define my character's ethical code, using your argument above: You do not need an alignment aid and a descriptor is just fine for my purposes with regards to alignment.

Even if the GM warns the player, there is still the point that it is the GM, not the player, deciding what sort of conduct the PC must engage in order to keep his/her class abilities.

My concern is that, first, if the player wants to keep playing a holy warrior, why should s/he not be allowed to just because, were the GM in his/her shoes, s/he would play it differently? That is to say, my concern is with the player who wants to play a paladin or cleric. Why should the GM be sitting in judgement over the adequacy of their evaluative choices in playing that character? It would be like the GM telling the player of the fighter how to tactically engage the monsters, or telling the wizard which spell to use - namely, the GM is taking over the very thing that the player chose the class to do.

From the above paragraph it appears you have not comprehended anything from the 2e DMG I quoted for you and you default back to, IMO, a weak argument that is based around implying Alignment DMs are poor DMs and Players using Alignments wear straight-jackets.
What actions would you like your paladin to perform which you imagine an alignment DM would restrict? Enlighten me please because all I have heard are fears, concerns and conjectures of GMs controlling players and I think it is only fair you list some examples, otherwise we will continue to talk around each other.

We don't do let the GM strip class abilities from the player of the thief because s/he thinks not enough theft is going on; of from the player of the bard because the PC is perceived as having the wrong taste in music. Why should religiously devoted PCs be treated differently? This is the core of my objection to alignment, though it generalises to issues of valuation more broadly.

IMO, these are extremely poor examples used to defend ones core objection since:

1. They are irrational at their core.
2. Assume the DM lacks common sense.

There might be more problems one could identify with these examples, but those are the primary ones I desire to reflect on.

But the more fundamental issue is you're no longer playing the PC you wanted to play.

Which paladin did you want to play? The paladin with the nick "slayer of orc infants"? Is that the avenue you would like to pursue with your paladin but the common-sense lacking DM is denying you? How dare he? If only Lancelot were here to tell us how its done...

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a LG paladin is balanced. Why is a non-LG paladin more powerful than a LG one? In other words, what advantage does the player of the paladin gain in having his/her PC act in ways that the GM would judge to not be LG?

For that comparison one would have to assume the non-LG paladin is able to change alignment and not lose their Divine Power. Now with regards to her/his power - it is the freedom to do what he/she likes not having to answer to anyone.
Divine or Arcane Magic is deemed powerful within a D&D setting - and it is tempered with restrictions: Training, Research, High Abilities, Longer Casting Times, Opposition Schools, Verbal Somatic Material Components, Learning , Low Hit Points, Max No of Spells per Level, Chance to Learn Spell, Higher XP progression...etc Alignment is another such restriction.

I might be a hopeful romantic but I'm closing with another quote which you are welcome to ignore again:
2e DMG (page 28) "If a paladin rides through a town ravaged by disease and ignores the suffering of the inhabitants, he has transgressed his alignment in an obvious, but small, way. Several such failures could lead to an alignment change.
In the meantime, the paladin could recognise his danger and amend his ways, preventing the change and preserving his paladinhood. If the paladin burns the village to prevent the disease from spreading he commits a seriously evil act.
In this case, the DM is justified in instituting an immediate alignment change to lawful evil or even chaotic evil. The character eventually may be able to change back to lawful good alignment, but he will never again be a paladin."

Now in this instance I am more inclined to agree with you that the Paladin's alignment should not change
(per 3e) on one act alone. But on the losing of his/her abilities, well that's up to each DM to decide. In fiction this is really simple - if Galahad or Lancelot burnt a village and its community, despite the threat of a disease outbreak, we would consider them fallen from grace. Apparently that is frowned upon in D&D, it seems like the fiction we draw from must be flawed.