Gaming in a high-trust environment

[shilsen]

Something that I've noticed ever since I joined these boards, way back before 3e arrived, is how many of the problems people seem to have in the game stem from interpersonal issues rather than system issues. While that is to be expected with play style issues, they seem to be a factor not only when a DM/player is pissed off with a DM/player, but also when there are rules issues, whether it be problems with something being too strong/weak, issues with how fast/slow characters level up, prevalence of magic in the game, alignment issues, creating a particular character, etc.

A big part of that seems to be issues of communication too, and I often find myself suggesting to people (both on this board and on the Rules Forum) that the first thing they should do is talk to the player or DM about what is going on and what they want. I would think that sort of advice is redundant, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I've discussed these phenomena with some of the people I game with who frequent ENWorld and other boards, and they all seem to have noticed the same thing. 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.

I'll use a specific example of the advantages of gaming in such an environment. I play in Mallus' game (the Burne story hour in my sig) along with Rackhir, Rolzup and Atlatl Jones. I think Mallus would be the first to admit that all of his players are better versed in the rules than he is and significantly better at power-gaming. Mallus also happens to be mixing AU/AE rules with D&D 3.0e with 3.5e, allows a lot of freedom and flexibility with character creation and development (for example, he allowed usage of the Bo9S without having read it himself), has essentially thrown out normal XP progression, doesn't track character wealth progression, etc. Going by the discussions on these boards, that combines to be a wonderful recipe for disaster. But the campaign has been going just swimmingly for years, since it is a high-trust environment. Mallus trusts us as players enough to know that we're not going to try to break his campaign, and if he finds something too powerful to handle, he can just tell the player, "You know, this is a bit much. Why don't you change it for something else?" And it'll be done or he'll get a dozen suggestions for ways to work with the ability and challenge the character, many of them coming from the player concerned. Similarly, as players we trust him enough to be able to openly discuss whatever works or doesn't work in the campaign, and to bring up any concerns or questions we have and know they'll get a hearing. I've also been playing in Rolzup's game for a while now and the DM-player relationship there is precisely the same. And I try to run my own games with just the same sort of environment. At this point, I really wouldn't be willing to stay in a game without that kind of high trust between players and DM.

All of which brings me to my questions. Do you think a high trust environment can minimize or remove many of the supposed problems in the system? Would you be willing to game in an environment which doesn't have that kind of mutual trust? And do you?

Mostly, I'm just curious.

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

 

[Gilladian]

I run what I hope is a "high-trust" game. My players and I have been together for over 10 years, closer to 15. But I've also played a lot at the local game shop, where there's nothing close to high trust, just because people are coming and going, the DM may be brand new (we tend to rotate DM's to give people experience), and other factors.

One game is (I think) a bit better than the other, but the second is still fun and worth doing. I just have different expectations. And that's where I think problems develop. Players don't tailor their expectations to the game environment. And most people are NOT TAUGHT interpersonal skills. So yes, reminding them to ASK and DISCUSS in a calm friendly way is often a necessity.

 

[bento]

Most long running and stable groups have a rythm that's tuned over time to DM/player wants and needs. I think most problems we hear about are from groups that are relatively newly formed or have a preponderance of new folks.

One suggestion I've made from time to time regarding interpersonal conflict is for a group to institute a "Social Contract" where items that are often assumed are brought to the surface and decided. A document is drafted and ratifed by the group over a myriad of items that come into play, including rules, campaign setting issues, game style, group conflict, tardiness, and so forth. The best source I've found on the topic is on TreasureTables.org - here's the link: http://www.treasuretables.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social_Contract

 

[jdrakeh]

All of which brings me to my questions. Do you think a high trust environment can minimize or remove many of the supposed problems in the system? Would you be willing to game in an environment which doesn't have that kind of mutual trust? And do you?

It's funny that you should use the term "high trust" as this is what several designers (Malcolm Sheppard being one who immediately springs to mind) have dubbed rules-light game systems. That is, game systems that require a larger reliance on good judgement and fair arbitration than on written rules (e.g., Quick 20, C&C, TWERPS, etc) have been dubbed thusly.

So, yes, I do think that given the appropriate level of willingness on behalf of the players to cooperate with one another in the pursuit of common interests can alleviate many perceived shortcoming of several rule-sets. The "high trust" label comes about because, in such games, this level of willingess and mutual cooperation is pretty much necessary in order to achieve a pleasurable play experience.

Now, this may be a pitfall if you can't find a group of people to play with who are capable of such "high trust" interaction, though if you can find such people to play with, I've found that the experience is among the best that gaming has to offer. As for your last two questions. . .

I absolutely prefer to game exclusively in such a "high trust" environment (though not necessarily with a "high trust" system). I never knowingly enter into a game where that level of trust doesn't exist or can't be fostered, though I've been fooled into joining many a game where claims of such an environement were made only to find out that the GM or other players were horribly undeserving of such trust in actual practice.

 

[LostSoul]

All of which brings me to my questions. Do you think a high trust environment can minimize or remove many of the supposed problems in the system?

I think a high-trust enivronment will change or adapt the game rules to create a system that works for the group - and if the game can't be changed enough, or it's too much work, people will quit playing that game without bad feelings.

So, yeah.

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

I would hate to play in an intent-irrelevant game (I'll define that in a bit) with someone I didn't trust. If player intent was relevant in resolving conflicts in the system, then I'd be much more likely to try it out with strangers.

Here is a picture that explains intent.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

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

Honestly? Yup.

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

This is a bit more complicated, for me at least. I play rpgs for a lot of reasons, and one of those is social. So even if I'm not really a fan of a particular person's style of running a game (in other words I've got less trust of 'em) I'm likely to still play if I like the people involved in the game.

If I've got no connection to the people (like what happens every time I move and have to start over) then I honestly don't have a choice. I either have to take a chance or go without playing. I do believe that no rpg play is better than _bad_ play, but when starting out fresh there's a certain amount of "sucking it up" that has to be done.

Overall, I prefer a higher trust environment and if I can't find/establish it, I will walk away from a game. I absolutely refuse flat out to play long-term in a low trust environment. I know there's some people out there that love playing rpgs so much that they'll put up with almost anything in order to keep playing, but I'm not one of 'em.

My personal observation over the past 20 years suggests that a lot of games (like D&D 3.x for example) rely on the rules much more frequently these days, in part because of the low-trust issue. In low trust games, a player (or GM) can always fall back and say, "No, that's B.S. We agreed to play this game, and this is how the rules work. We never said anything about houserules."

I'm not going to pass any kind of value judgement on it, I'm simply noting that the overall tone and way of relying on the rules has shifted compared to what I used to see. I won't speculate why either.

To a certain extent, the game system is being substitued in place of a group working out amongst themseleves how they're going to do things. If you look at it from a slightly different perspective, it can tell you a bit about the "style" of the people involved.

By which I mean, many of the small press games these days are lighter on the rules. Not just things like tactical movement and whether a die should be rolled for scatter if a grenade toss misses, but things like "combat, arguing with somebody else, running a race...these are all 'conflict situations' and resolved the same way." Rules-lighter games inherently rely on higher trust environments.

For example, plenty of people like to jump up and down and scream about how "unbalanced" games like Rifts or BESM 2nd Ed are. They'll lovingly detail how broken the system is, how easy it is to munchkin, blah blah blah. They either completely ignore, or actively argue _againt_ the fact that the game has a certain expectation of trust. "If a person wanted to they could..." is the usual refrain.

Well yeah, a person _could_, but that's only a problem if all the people in the game let it be a problem.

Which is where that whole thing with "rules lawyers" pops up. The problem with them isn't that someone is skilled in the rules, the problem is that the expectation is that the rules have _replaced_ the option to negotiate and accept/refuse an option in the game based on what people are willing to accept.

Some people _really_ like rules systems that imply a low trust environment (like D&D) not because they're complete rat bastards, but because they really like the pure "game" aspect.

It's at this point that things start getting really muddled, and flames like to erupt on the internet. The reason is because people _do_ play rpgs for different reasons, so you've got personal reasons to play rpgs mixing in with different rule systems which carry a bit of an implicit expectation about why people are there playing the game in the first place.

D&D for example implies a lower trust environment, as well as wanting to be able to engage in tactical/tournement play. Now, you can have people houserule it out, and toss all sorts of stuff, and plenty of folks do. But their reasons for doing so run up against other people's reasons for playing the game, and _some_ people really like and want those rules in place, explicitly because it does act in part as a limiter on player/DM action.

I think by and large though, most people aren't really interested in (and don't give much if any thought) to the assumptions behind the game rules and so forth. They just want to sit down and play a game, and it's just easier to play some games than others. Why it is, and why some games are more satisfying than others is just something that people can't be bothered with figuring out.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

And before anyone gets the wrong idea...

No, I'm not a D&D hater nor a d20 hater. I also have a limited tolerance and use for a lot of "rpg theory" floating around out there, and generarally refuse to waste my time getting involved in theory talks.

I play games to be awesome in, and I run games for others to be awesome.

If I'm having trouble finding the awesome, I'll do some poking around. Sometimes rpg theory has a way of solving it, sometimes it's a rule issue.

I'll take whatever I need or can get to run a game that I think is fun and that others enjoy, and I could care less about the other stuff.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting- this reminds me of something I noticed last night: the general expectation of a campaign's lifespan seems to be on the order of 6 months or 7 levels or something.

All the games I am involved in are long-running (years to decades) and most of them show no sign of stopping soon.

Now, a large part of why this is is the trust issue. We're a tight group that goes back a long ways, and we hang out outside of gaming a lot. Is this what makes our games last decades? I dunno; corellation is not causation, yet is remains corellation.

 

[Umbran]

All of which brings me to my questions. Do you think a high trust environment can minimize or remove many of the supposed problems in the system?

Yes, a high-trust environment can help overcome faults in just about any system, and can help the group fail gracefully when the faults cannot be overcome.

With, of course, the caveat that the trust is well-placed. I have, unfortunately, had an experience or two with placing trust in my fellow gamers, and having them fall down on their end of things, and that isn't fun.

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

Taking things to an extreme for a moment - I play in some live-action RPGs that have 60 or 80 people all in play, and a dozen people GMing all at once. It is not reasonable for me to have the level of trust you suggest in all of these people. Setting aside the fact that they were not vetted for trustworthiness in particular, I simply cannot communicate enough with all of them that they won't occasionally step on my toes, get in my face, or otherwise conflict with what I'm looking for.

The end result is an occasional annoyance, headache, or bad time. There are benefits to be gotten out of such an environment, though, that cannot be had elsewhere. So long as those benefits outweigh the detriments, I come out in the long-term with a positive experience, and that's god enough.

 

[SlagMortar]

I've discussed these phenomena with some of the people I game with who frequent ENWorld and other boards, and they all seem to have noticed the same thing. 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.

I think this expands beyond RPGs, though the fact that the basic activity of an RPG is sitting around talking to other people makes it especially noticable in RPGs.

I've played pickup basketball, flag football, soccer, and ultimate frisbee for years. It is easy for a game to get bogged down in disagreement on fouls, out of bounds, incomplete passes, "these teams are unfair," etc. It is much more enjoyable to play a with a group where everyone is trusted to try to make a fair call, play hard no matter whose team they are on. Such a spirit is basically written into the rules of ultimate frisbee so that's become my game of choice over the years, but even in ultimate frisbee there are different amounts of trust in the groups.