Gaming in a high-trust environment

[Mallus]

Do you think a high trust environment can minimize or remove many of the supposed problems in the system?

I think a high-trust environments discourage people from looking to the game mechanics to settle what are essentially interpersonal problems. HTE's (sometimes, I love acronyms) also make it easy to use ad-hoc rulings to solve the problem at hand. If they turn out to have unforeseen long-term consequences, so what? The players aren't lawyers looking to quote precedent, the ah-hoc ruling gets overruled, and a new solution gets implemented. BTW, it pains me to read about house/ad-hoc rulings that 'broke the game'. Why didn't those groups just undo the houserule/rule something else? A D&D campaign should be a self-correcting system.

Try this on for size, shil. The trust problem endemic to traditional, GM-moderated RPG's is the anxiety over power that's built into the set-up. One players is cast in the role of scenario designer, rules-arbiter, and rule-implementer. This player is also frequently cast in the role of antagonist and, in order for the other players to feel like they're winning the game, they have to defeat him.

It's a little like soccer (er, football) where the opposing goal tender is also the referee, and he's armed with a Kalashnikov instead of red cards. Well, a very little like that...

Would you be willing to game in an environment which doesn't have that kind of mutual trust?

Not any more, no. What I want out of an RPG experience ("make me a violent storybook to cavort in!") requires a high-trust environment and a lot of fiat rulings.

And do you?

Right now I'm quite fortunate that I don't have to. As if you didn't know.

P.S. In case it wasn't obvious above, Mallus and Rolzup - you guys rock! Big time.

Yes, yes we do. I mean... thanks. I'm flattered. Obviously we couldn't do it without you.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In a high trust environment why do you need rules at all? Or would that be a perfect trust environment?

 

[Mallus]

In a high trust environment why do you need rules at all?

Without some rules, or the occasional use of rules, we couldn't get the satisfaction that comes from playing a game.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I only play RPGs in a high trust environment.

That is, with people I know and not in front of an audience.

 

[Andre]

I'm seriously beginning to think that 95% of problems people have while playing the game has little to do with the game and has everything to do with not gaming in what I'd call a high-trust environment.

While I agree that trust (definition: everyone focused on having fun together) is the most important element, I won't let rules systems off the hook completely.

Sometimes a rules system is just the wrong system for a group. If you want to kick butt and take names, playing Call of Cthulhu probably isn't a good choice. Likewise, some systems just aren't ready for prime time and no matter how good a group is, they shouldn't have to be game designers to make a game work reasonably well. It's fair to point out and critique the flaws in any system, and hold the designers accountable for the shortcomings.

That said, like all things in life, a good relationship among people will overcome even major issues. If the relationship is bad, then any problem, no matter how minor, will bring out the worst.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Do you think a high trust environment can minimize or remove many of the supposed problems in the system?

Can’t be done.

I’ve gamed with emotional cripples, control freaks and people who started PvP fights (when the game did not call for it and when it got in the way, actually) just out of spite. These kinds of people make up a sizable minority of players and they will not know what you are talking about if you are not talking about them, they will just understand their emotional need to hurt the other players. So all the good intentions and sincere attempts at communications are exercises in futility when everyone involved is talking about “having a good time” and to many of the participants this means treating you like a toilet (‘cause they like nothing so much as filling you with their crap).

Game for that 15 minutes out of an hour that are enjoyable, pretty much like all of human interactions.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

I’ve gamed with emotional cripples, control freaks and people who started PvP fights (when the game did not call for it and when it got in the way, actually) just out of spite. These kinds of people make up a sizable minority of players …

In my 30 years experience these people are the norm rather than the minority of D&D players.

I've played in a total trust environment (me & a budy co-DMed and co-played), a small number of high trust environments, and the typical low trust environment. In the past I've been so desperate to play D&D that I would play in very low trust environments with people that I would never socialize with ouside of the game. Both the start and the end of my D&D career reflected that desperation. In each case, I got so sick and tired of playing (as a DM or as a player) in such a low trust environment with people that I disliked as persons that I stopped playing.

I really think that low trust enviroments are endemic to our hobby and 3x is the best version for a low trust game. The reality is, most people who are emotionally secure with good interpersonal skills either don't play D&D or drop out. And while ENworld is not filled with socially-challenged nerds, there is a reason why our hobby can't shake off that stereotype.

Given the chance, would I play D&D again in a high trust environment? You betcha! I hope that with 4e I'll be able to run some game with my old buddies in Denver and Indianapolis (I live in California). And I look forward to introducing my kids to D&D when they get older. Would I ever play again in a low trust environment, home game or tournament. No way.

There is so much more to life than playing games with people you don't like and/or respect.

 

[shilsen]

Lots of interesting comments. I'm just reponding to some random (and more recent) ones.

I think a high-trust environments discourage people from looking to the game mechanics to settle what are essentially interpersonal problems. HTE's (sometimes, I love acronyms) also make it easy to use ad-hoc rulings to solve the problem at hand. If they turn out to have unforeseen long-term consequences, so what? The players aren't lawyers looking to quote precedent, the ah-hoc ruling gets overruled, and a new solution gets implemented.

I haven't had too much experience of the above, perhaps because I haven't played as much as some of you guys (but, boy, am I making up fast!), but I have seen more than a few anecdotes and threads on these boards where DMs have a problem because a previous ruling is being used like Damocles' sword. I guess that's another way to define rules-lawyers - people who use precedent to make their argument work.

BTW, it pains me to read about house/ad-hoc rulings that 'broke the game'. Why didn't those groups just undo the houserule/rule something else? A D&D campaign should be a self-correcting system.

I think there's a strange element of taking the game too seriously in such cases, where the assumption is that there has to be complete internal consistency. I recently posted on a thread where there were problems with a PC character build, suggesting that the DM simply allow the character to be changed, and at least one poster said that didn't make sense since the group would have to retcon everything that has happened since the character came in. We're not writing novels or putting on a TV series where the fans will go crazy about internal inconsistency, but I think a number of people do view their games as seriously.

Try this on for size, shil. The trust problem endemic to traditional, GM-moderated RPG's is the anxiety over power that's built into the set-up. One players is cast in the role of scenario designer, rules-arbiter, and rule-implementer. This player is also frequently cast in the role of antagonist and, in order for the other players to feel like they're winning the game, they have to defeat him.

I think that's a factor often, though not always. Never worked for me, since I never liked the "DM/player antagonism" approach.

It's a little like soccer (er, football) where the opposing goal tender is also the referee, and he's armed with a Kalashnikov instead of red cards. Well, a very little like that...

Bugger! Now you're making me want to play soccer.

Not any more, no. What I want out of an RPG experience ("make me a violent storybook to cavort in!") requires a high-trust environment and a lot of fiat rulings.

RPGs as a violent storybook to cavort in? I'm sold.

Yes, yes we do. I mean... thanks. I'm flattered. Obviously we couldn't do it without you.

Thanks.

While I agree that trust (definition: everyone focused on having fun together) is the most important element, I won't let rules systems off the hook completely.

Sometimes a rules system is just the wrong system for a group. If you want to kick butt and take names, playing Call of Cthulhu probably isn't a good choice. Likewise, some systems just aren't ready for prime time and no matter how good a group is, they shouldn't have to be game designers to make a game work reasonably well. It's fair to point out and critique the flaws in any system, and hold the designers accountable for the shortcomings.

Agreed. And as some people have pointed out already, some systems just lean towards high trust environments more or better than others.

That said, like all things in life, a good relationship among people will overcome even major issues. If the relationship is bad, then any problem, no matter how minor, will bring out the worst.

Nice analogy.

 

[shilsen]

Can’t be done.

I’ve gamed with emotional cripples, control freaks and people who started PvP fights (when the game did not call for it and when it got in the way, actually) just out of spite. These kinds of people make up a sizable minority of players and they will not know what you are talking about if you are not talking about them, they will just understand their emotional need to hurt the other players. So all the good intentions and sincere attempts at communications are exercises in futility when everyone involved is talking about “having a good time” and to many of the participants this means treating you like a toilet (‘cause they like nothing so much as filling you with their crap).

Man, no wonder you're grumpy !

Of course, what you're saying here doesn't really support the idea that it "can't be done," but rather that you find a high trust environment fairly rare. Apparently I've been really lucky in my gaming, especially in view of some of the horror stories I've heard on ENWorld and elsewhere, but the vast majority of my gaming has occurred in high trust environments. Admittedly in some cases I've had to work (and in those cases I was never the only one) to make them achieve that status, but it was never that difficult. And in a couple of cases, I gave it some time and when it became clear that won't happen, I dropped out.

Game for that 15 minutes out of an hour that are enjoyable, pretty much like all of human interactions.

I guess it's a matter of taste, standards and assumptions, but that's just not acceptable for me in either my gaming or my human interactions.

In my 30 years experience these people are the norm rather than the minority of D&D players.

As noted above, clearly I've somehow been getting the cream of the crop. You guys have my sympathies!

I really think that low trust enviroments are endemic to our hobby and 3x is the best version for a low trust game. The reality is, most people who are emotionally secure with good interpersonal skills either don't play D&D or drop out. And while ENworld is not filled with socially-challenged nerds, there is a reason why our hobby can't shake off that stereotype.

Okay, let me amend that. You really have my sympathies! That so doesn't describe most of the people I've gamed and currently game with.

There is so much more to life than playing games with people you don't like and/or respect.

Amen. I'm not willing to do anything with people I don't like or respect.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Okay, let me amend that. You really have my sympathies! That so doesn't describe most of the people I've gamed and currently game with.

I think luck plays a huge factor in finding the right people just like luck plays a factor in finding friends. I've played with some awesome people whom I've become life long friends. In my case though, I've moved to different states (for a number of reasons) three times and have had to search for a new group/new players. Staying in one place with your buddies is ideal for building high trust environments.

I think you'll notice as you and your group get older that Real Life gets in the way. Games will become fewer and fewer and players will drop out for any number of reaons. Then you'll be faced with the prospect of finding new players, most of whom will be much younger than you by that time. The demographics of D&D is not encouraging, ENworld notwithstanding. For me personally, I find it a lot easier to build HTEs with people who are not more than 10 years my junior. This is not to say that I didn't have HTEs in my 20's. I did have a few HTE games… which consisted of other 20-somethings. In my 30s, I had an HTE campaign with other 30-somethings.

Bottom line, is enjoy your HTE while you can. In my personal experience, playing an RPG in a high trust environment is tremendously enjoyable and fulfilling. They're just not commonplace just as finding close friends takes both hard work and a lot of luck.