Should this be fixed

[Thagdal]

The player playing the warlock and the dwarf made the role playing decision not to trust the new characters. They feel it is some kind of trick.

They made a player desicon to roleplay it that way. So being difficult on purpose.

 

[billd91]

If the DM simply states, "terrorism is evil" then there is no more exploration of the theme. We know the answer, insofar as this campaign is concerned. It's no different than a physical exploration DM handing the PC's a fully detailed map of the area to be explored including all answers. It removes the primary motivation of play.

<snip>

Is necromancy evil? Nope, not in this setting. Ok, conversation is finished.

I think you are utterly wrong on both counts. Both of these statements - terrorism and necromancy and their relationship to evil - are merely statements that may be part of a conversation. But they're no end to a conversation. Declaring either to be evil or not evil is hardly different from calling them illegal or legal. If the PC is willing to countenance the in-game consequence of living on the run on a paltry stipend from the local unit, the potential of being killed by an SAS shoot-to-kill operation, the potential of having their families harassed by the RUC or UVF, the likelihood of being caught and ramrodded through a hostile court system for something as little as possession of a few rounds of ammunition... then declaring terrorism evil on some objective scale of alignment isn't much of an issue. Particularly not when society at large (outside of their own close-knit community) brands them evil anyway and will act quite seriously and harshly on that assumption.

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, another good post!

If you take a moral position that killing evil is not self-justifying, then a great deal of D&D play gets really sticky.

One way I try and deal with this issue is to use a lot of undead and demons. (Given that they're often still sentient, the issue doesn't go away entirely, but it casts it differently enough that other options/interpretations open up - for example, killing undead may release a soul to its proper resting place, and demons may not have souls at all.)

And in my current game, nearly all of the violence against humanoids has been against soldiers engaged in what are recognisably military operations - be they goblin, hobgoblin or gnoll soldiers. Which still raises moral issues, but different ones from the killing of civilians.

Some hobgoblin and goblin prisoners have been taken and released on their own recognisance, having sworn the appropriate oaths. Other hobgoblin prisoners have been slaughtered in acts of brutal (and arguably misplaced) revenge. This is part of what the game permits being brought out (like your example of terrorism in a modern RPG).

In the first Rolemaster game I GMed, one of the players played a paladin who used a two-handed sword, but who abhorred killing. In RM this can work, because most fights end with a combatant unconscious or otherwise hors-de-combat rather than dead. It wasn't until something like 6 months into the campaign that the player rolled a death crit against a humanoid opponent, chopping off his head. The player had his PC go out into the wilderness, to fast and meditate in repetance. I rolled a random encounter, and it turned out to be a RM variant of the Barlgura demon.

I had the demon start taunting the PC about his moral failings. I assumed that the player would reason that no demon can speak the truth, and hence that this was a sign that he should regard his penance as done, kill the demon, and rejoin the party. In fact, however, the player took the demon as a sending from his PC's god, and had his PC offer no resistance as the demon beat him to a pulp - at which point, getting bored, the demon moved on and left him for the other PCs to find and revive him.

For me, this was one of several formative experiences which affirmed that, if you trust your players and open up a space in which they feel they can trust you, then things will happen which are more interesting than just making the players dance to your own interpretive or evaluative script. (And who was right about the demon - me as GM, or the player? We never needed to decide. The event was what it was. Would it have added anything to the game to have the demon move on to a village and massacre all its inhabitants? I don't think so - all that would have done, that I can see, is pointlessly punish the player, and shut down the roleplaying in just the sort of way that you have been talking about.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage - I agree, they don't have to be equal. They do, however, have to have some level of equivalency, if you see what I mean. If option X is 100% rewarded and Option Y is 100% punished, then no one is going to choose Y. At least, no rational actor will.

I will also totally agree that this is not for everyone. I think I said that earlier.

I'm going to disagree with part of this in a moment, but I think you did mention it wasn't for everyone. But neither is my style of game (I'd label it as "fringe" as well as what I was discussing earlier).

But, if you don't have equivalent outcomes, then there is no debate. Why would there be? If doing X means you win and doing Y means you lose, then, well, there's not a whole lot of discussion to be had.

The debate becomes which of the positive outcomes do we want to pursue? I've had PCs that would rather die than budge on their views. What's the benefit, other than being stubborn? It's -in their mind- not corruption of their mind or soul. If they are slain because of this, they may not chalk it up a win, but they'll know that their will was unbreakable, and they will revel in that fact.

However, equivalent choices are equal choices, really. Maybe I'm not grasping something, but if choices are always to have equally interesting outcomes, then every choice must mean very little, or it must mean quite a bit. I suppose it might fall somewhere in between, but proposing that all choices must be equivalent is just odd to me.

To answer your question, again, it goes back to "which of the positive outcomes do we want to pursue?" I think that expecting negative consequences for attacking several towns unprovoked and ill-equipped and expecting positive consequences for assisting a town while well-equipped isn't a bad thing. I think it speaks to the consistency and believability of the game world. Attacking a town and defending a town can both be interesting, no matter if you succeed or not. However, the expected consequences of those actions and how they affect your character should not necessarily be defined as equivalent in my mind.

This does not mean I'm in any way against an interesting result either way. But I think certain actions -even tied to themes- should carry obviously negative consequences. This, to me, is not a railroad situation, as I originally stated.

Take another possible example. I want to explore the topic of terrorism in my game. I make sure that the players are groovy with this theme beforehand because, well, I don't want to start any fights.

Now, I set the game in the 1970's in Northern Ireland and the PC's are members of the IRA. Of course, not every decision point will be a moral quandary - the example you give of "when to go to sleep, who's on watch..." is a bit of a red herring. It's completely outside of the theme we want to examine.

But, during play, the question will come up - what is acceptable? Are civilian casualties acceptable? To what degree? What about escalation? How does this all fit within the context of a modern society? Etc, etc.

If we're exploring terrorism, I think that walking up to a semi-important paper pusher and shooting him in front of his armed guards and a plethora of cameras carries with it certain negative consequences for your character. And I think it should.

Now, if you define yourself as "doing well" even if you get shot and killed, then that's fine. I think individuals can define whether they're doing well on their own terms. However, I think that expecting equivalent consequences for this as you would for, say, taking out a prime minister via a long-range sniper rifle with an escape plan, then I'll disagree.

Consequences, as defined: "something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." To this end, the idea that they must somehow be equivalent when exploring a theme is still something I disagree with.

If the DM simply states, "terrorism is evil" then there is no more exploration of the theme. We know the answer, insofar as this campaign is concerned. It's no different than a physical exploration DM handing the PC's a fully detailed map of the area to be explored including all answers. It removes the primary motivation of play.

I agree with you. I don't think differing levels of consequences implies that statement whatsoever, however.

I don't think anyone proposed "very light consequences for every decision" since that would be pointless. The decisions that are based around the concept being explored should carry important consequences, regardless of what is decided. But, you cannot play this style of game if the DM simply labels things beforehand.

Is necromancy evil? Nope, not in this setting. Ok, conversation is finished.

Which is a perfectly fine way to play. There's nothing saying that you have to have moral introspection in the game. Heck, the alignment system is pretty much designed from the ground up to prevent this kind of philosophical discussion from grinding the game to a halt. Ten billion paladin debates show that. Why are we killing orcs? Because orcs are evil and they need killing.

If you take a moral position that killing evil is not self-justifying, then a great deal of D&D play gets really sticky.

Yeah, I agree here, too. Although, I don't think "different actions will have different consequences" is near the same as "necromancy is Evil." They are two completely different things.

Saying "necromancy is Evil" might kill a game if the theme is exploring whether or not necromancy is inherently Evil. However, saying "different actions will have different consequences" does not kill that game at all. It just says that my methods determine my success within this particular theme. Which, I think, is the standard method of determining things like DCs, and subsequent success or failure.

If I am missing or misrepresenting something, let me know. I appreciate a civil discussion on this matter.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

If we're exploring terrorism, I think that walking up to a semi-important paper pusher and shooting him in front of his armed guards and a plethora of cameras carries with it certain negative consequences for your character. And I think it should.

<snip>

Consequences, as defined: "something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." To this end, the idea that they must somehow be equivalent when exploring a theme is still something I disagree with.

<snip>

If I am missing or misrepresenting something, let me know.

I'm not Hussar, but do have a response to this.

I don't think you're misrepresenting anything.

I think you may be missing something. Because you seem to be focused mostly on ingame causal consequences of action resolution; and seem not to be considering the implications these have for how players will approach the game.

A concrete example of this is the encounter between the paladin and the demon I described in my previous post. One possible consequence of that encounter, in which the paladin lets a demon beat him to a pulp as punishment for wrongdoing, is that the demon, unchecked, goes on to massacre the inhabitants of a village. An alternative, though, is that the demon just disappears off the stage, never to be thought of again by players or GM as an ongoing participant in the fiction. (If the question ever does come up, the GM can decide retrospectively that the demon, having got its fill of paladin-bashing, returned back to the abyss.)

For me, when deciding which sort of consequence should follow, I think first and foremost about how the consequence will support or undermine the player's engagement with the game. I then think about how a consequence that is useful in this respect can be worked into the fiction. There are many ways in which this can be done and internal ficitonal plausibility maintained.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As a general rule, I prefer that most of these sorts of decisions have no consequences in my game - I can think of dozens of more interesting questions to address in an RPG than who's on watch when!

Path taken is sometimes interesting, and when it is I'm happy for it to be addressed in play.

These day, the question of when to sleep I treat as a consequence of skill challenge resolution rather than as something under the players' direct control - this works better with other aspects of 4e.

What is being put forth to me is equivalent consequences for actions in a game. This has not been specified or reduced to "only actions that are pertaining to the theme" and even if it were, my post above addresses my feelings on this (I disagree).

Why not?

In fact, in my game, many decisions are of less heavy thematic weight than what Hussar described, because ultimately my game is a reasonably light, fairly derivative fantasy RPG. But what would be wrong with a heavier game of the sort Hussar describes (assuming that the players had the emotional stamina for it)? I've played like that at Cons, and they're some of the more memorable RPGing experiences I've had.

Let me preface this by saying that while this is solely my personal opinion, I'd wager an educated guess that not only my players would agree with me, but most of the other people I tend to speak with to with some regularity.

To me, at least, these sorts of decisions being piled up one after another will result in a devalued sense of what they should be.

I've "played" a game like this before with my group that we called "ethics board" with no dice or other mechanical system. They were presented with ethical dilemmas, and they decided what they thought the right course of action was. I decided the outcome based on those decisions, and we either addressed it more in-depth if their decision drew complications, or we moved on to a new dilemma. In this game, which we played a handful of times, the players felt less and less emotionally invested in the dilemmas, specifically because of their frequency. The first dilemma was extremely satisfying to play through, though the repetition of such important decisions drew the mystery out of it. It lessened their emotional attachment to the world they were a part of (which included characters and a setting as well).

Additionally, the pure time dedicated to each dilemma near the beginning of the game was such that if these decisions were made with the same fire initially elicited from the players, then the game would crawl to such a halt that the mechanical representation would become essentially subsystems that distracted from the main theme of a game.

This is, again, just my take on things. Could this be done successfully with the right group of people? Sure, it probably could be. I wouldn't recommend it, though.

I'm not sure I entirely follow all this, but there seems to be a disconnect here... [SNIP]

Likewise in an RPG. The players play their PCs. This tells us things about the players and can also be used by the players to tell us other things as well. I, as a fellow player or GM, can respond to that. But a referee's adjudication of the evaluative points made is not necessary. The points made carry their own meaning - they generate their own responses in their audience - this is the consequence that drives the game forward. How that consequence then relates to ingame matters is a secondary issue - there are any number of ways of handling that, and I think general prescriptions are hard to give.

Well, as someone who pretty much loathes story-driven fantasy games, I cannot agree that my style can possibly accept players as any type of author. I believe strongly in character-driven fantasy games, where the actions of PCs determines the story, but the idea of story every trumping the mechanics with any regularity rubs me the wrong way to such a degree that were I to be informed that a game would be using this method within a fantasy setting, I'd simply skip the game altogether.

Now, in other games and settings, I'm okay with the story coming first. I play Mutants and Masterminds on occasion. When I do play, I find it is much more fulfilling to attempt to play in the vein of comics or shows than it is to play with just the power mechanics in a setting while sticking to the rolls trumping story. Of course, a game like M&M has rules built in that allow that level of narrative control (hero points and the one GM fiat), and that suits that style well.

In a game like D&D, I don't personally find this to be the case, and I'd much rather see what sort of interesting story emerges from character actions (with appropriate consequences) rather than see what type of story I can help create via character actions. I think there's a subtle but world-changing difference there.

As always, though, this genre allows both of us to have fun, and that's pretty amazing. I'm glad we can both enjoy ourselves so thoroughly, and be so passionate about our preferences. Play what you like

EDIT:

I'm not Hussar, but do have a response to this.

I don't think you're misrepresenting anything.

I think you may be missing something. Because you seem to be focused mostly on ingame causal consequences of action resolution; and seem not to be considering the implications these have for how players will approach the game.

I really do appreciate your wording here. Thank you for being considerate.

A concrete example of this is the encounter between the paladin and the demon I described in my previous post. One possible consequence of that encounter, in which the paladin lets a demon beat him to a pulp as punishment for wrongdoing, is that the demon, unchecked, goes on to massacre the inhabitants of a village. An alternative, though, is that the demon just disappears off the stage, never to be thought of again by players or GM as an ongoing participant in the fiction. (If the question ever does come up, the GM can decide retrospectively that the demon, having got its fill of paladin-bashing, returned back to the abyss.)

For me, when deciding which sort of consequence should follow, I think first and foremost about how the consequence will support or undermine the player's engagement with the game. I then think about how a consequence that is useful in this respect can be worked into the fiction. There are many ways in which this can be done and internal ficitonal plausibility maintained.

See, as I said above, I'm against story-driven games. In this sort of situation, I'd think of this specific demon's motivations, and have him act on those. If that means he goes to a village to massacre the inhabitants, I'd have him pursue that action. If that means he is currently satisfied and returns to the abyss, than I'd have him pursue that action.

I will not determine what would make the best story, and then pursue that fiction. To me, that bends the believability of the game too much for my taste, and it rubs me the wrong way. In another type of game, however, it's what I'd expect, and what my players would expect as well.

I think I'm approaching the themed campaign differently than you or Hussar might be, as I don't look at it from the fiction-first scope that you seem to. I look at it from the individual-first scope, and that colors my views quite differently (but not objectively better by any means).

Again, I'm glad we can talk about such things so civilly, and both enjoy the hobby even with our individual tastes. Play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I think you are utterly wrong on both counts. Both of these statements - terrorism and necromancy and their relationship to evil - are merely statements that may be part of a conversation. But they're no end to a conversation. Declaring either to be evil or not evil is hardly different from calling them illegal or legal. If the PC is willing to countenance the in-game consequence of living on the run on a paltry stipend from the local unit, the potential of being killed by an SAS shoot-to-kill operation, the potential of having their families harassed by the RUC or UVF, the likelihood of being caught and ramrodded through a hostile court system for something as little as possession of a few rounds of ammunition... then declaring terrorism evil on some objective scale of alignment isn't much of an issue. Particularly not when society at large (outside of their own close-knit community) brands them evil anyway and will act quite seriously and harshly on that assumption.

The thing is Bill91, what you are outlining is the beginning of the campaign, not the end. That's the point where we're starting from, because, well, we're members of the IRA in the 1970's.

However, none of the issues you bring up, which are all certainly elements in the game, actually addresses the point of play - which is to engage in the examination of the morality of terrorism.

 

[Hussar]

Well, as someone who pretty much loathes story-driven fantasy games, I cannot agree that my style can possibly accept players as any type of author. I believe strongly in character-driven fantasy games, where the actions of PCs determines the story, but the idea of story every trumping the mechanics with any regularity rubs me the wrong way to such a degree that were I to be informed that a game would be using this method within a fantasy setting, I'd simply skip the game altogether.

Ahh, yup, that's the issue right there.

This is SO not the game for your tastes.

To be fair, this is not to my tastes all the time either. I enjoy this from time to time, but, certainly not as a regular diet - too heavy mang. It's simply a different form of gaming, not one that is meant to replace anything.

Yeah, if you're approaching the game with an individual level scope, and not a thematic one, then, ohh, this is going to be a train wreck. In a thematic game, your character isn't really the most important thing in the game. He's still important, because he's the vehicle through which you interact with the world, but, decisions and discussions aren't centered so much on the ideas of realistic interaction with the world (I hate that phrase, but, I'm drawing a blank on how to phrase it better).

Thus in my way above example of the terrorist woman in the SF game, the possible results were - obey orders and the woman's bosses become aware that the PC's have entered into things and begin actively pursuing the PC's, possibly tipping information to the general public that the PC's organization has had a hand in the attack, or prevent the attack, meaning that the PC's own organization will be supremely angry, and forcing the woman's organization into higher security hiding, making them much, much more dangerous in the future.

Thus, equivalent but not equal reactions. Both choices carry serious consequences and will drive the campaign in very different directions.

Or, take Supernatural. Let's be honest. From an individual first scope, it makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer. The bad guys have the heroes by the short and curlies multiple times, but never just force the issue. But, that's not the point of the show. The point of the show is to carry on examining the theme of relationships of family and the sacrifices that families go through. It's repeated over and over again, particularly in the 5th season.

If Supernatural was an RPG (well, it is, but, I mean the TV show.), Dean and Sam would be dead, killed by one side or the other. But, while totally believable, doesn't really serve to answer the theme that the show has set up.

 

[Elf Witch]

While I agree that the PCs are authors of the fiction taking place in the world and should not be passive but an active part of it but they are not alone. The DM is also involved in the fiction taking place.

The DM is responsible for how the NPCs of the world respond to the PCs actions. The only thing the DM has to go on is the mores and social norms and laws that have been laid down in game. Now in most games this part of the world building is done by the DM. But there is nothing stopping the players from being involved in the creation of the world.

Now say that it has been decided that necromancy is not considered evil in a certain area. And one of the players decides his PC sees all necromancy as evil. This opens up a lot of interesting role playing because his world view is different than the norm. Not wrong different. If the player is just allowed to say hey I declare necromancy evil and all the NPCs will now agree with me you have just broken any consistency in the fiction being created.

What imo is better fiction is how this PCs reacts to the world view. If he goes off on a quest to destroy all necromancers and destroy all necromancer artifacts. This decision is going to bring him into conflict with the NPCs and maybe the other PCs. What the outcome of those conflicts are needed to be role played out. Most likely unless he is very smart it might end bad for his PC. But that maybe okay with the PC because he stood by his beliefs and died a martyr to the cause.

Another possibility is that PC tries to change the law and people's minds about it. Another cool road to role playing. But the fact that the game world says necromancy is not evil is not railroading or stopping the PC from exploring other options on the subject. And in the end changing the world view to necromancy is evil.

I read a lot of books on writing and I have taken several courses in it and one thing I have learned about fantasy writing is that you have to have internal consistency. How magic works, the laws and mores have to be consistent through the story or have a compelling reason to change. The world is not in a vacuum with no substance until the character inter acts with it.

Sometimes the character changes the world and sometimes the world changes the character.

In my game my issue with the player is that there is no role playing with the other PCs no discussion on why he thinks necromancy is evil. It is just evil even when other PCs say no its not always evil and here is why. I would really like to know why he thinks all necromancy is evil. Who knows if he made a compelling enough argument my character might change her view on the subject.

 

[The Shaman]

Those examples suggest that the Cossacks were extremely expedient.

Those examples demostrate that human beings are extremely expedient.

I mentioned the Cossacks because I just finished reading With Fire and Sword this weekend, but there's actually nothing specific to the Wild Lands about those examples, which crop up all over the world through human history.

A recurring joke among gamers is that if an object can be set on fire, at some point in the game it will be set on fire, and indeed, the Cossacks set a forest on fire to burn out an army in Sienkiewicz's tale. There're are good reasons players think to try these things.

I don't object to players being expedient, but I do think that a game in which expedience is the only, or the only reliable, route to success will tend to discourage players engaging in play that expresses other values.

Given that human beings choose inexpedient solutions based on their values in a world that favors expedience, I think too much emphasis on 'expressing other values' runs the risk of producing a game which is overly restrictive and contrived.

Of course, what counts as "success" is up for grabs across different groups and different playstyles - but for any sort of conventional ongoing campaign game, PC survial is probably a minimum element of it.

Agreed.

Hence my view that, if in this conventional sort of game you want players to feel free to explore or express a range of evaluative or thematic notions (of which expedience might be one), then it is helpful to ensure that the mechanics of PC life and death don't unduly favour expedience.

I tend to see it as more interesting when characters pursue the inexpedient with the full knowledge there are more expedient solutions.

On our last game-night, one of the adventurers allowed himself to be fired upon by a pair of Cardinal's Guards with arquebuses in order to satisfy his personal honor. There was no mechanical benefit to be derived from this action - he did it because he feared the social consequences of not doing it, social consequences without mechanical limitations or advantages in the rules of the game.

In my experience some of the games which offer some kind of mechanical advantage for expressing character values very interesting - Pendragon and Dogs in the Vineyard come to mind. I don't find them better than games which lack these rules, however.

There are games that push this issue more overtly than 4e: HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel, for example, make a player who wants to play expediently active choose that approach (because of the contribution to successful action resolution made by relationship-grounded augments, and spiritual attributes, respectively). 4e doesn't expressly say anywhere that the default to expedience is excluded. However, my view (and like the rest of my views, my views on 4e seem to command comparatively little assent!) . . .

Yeah, you've seen the reception my views on character backgrounds and attributes get, so I know how that goes.

. . . is that 4e pushes in a similar direction to HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel in a more passive-aggressive way - because it doesn't support classic D&D exploration very well, I think it will produce a pretty boring RPG experience unless the players actively engage it with some sort of thematic concerns in mind. (The alternative, which WotC seems to adopt in its modules, is to leave the GM in charge of theme and story and to reduce the game, from the player point of view, to a skirmish game with a very high degree of colour.)

Knowing next to nothing about 4e, I'm not in a position to dispute that.

I do find the idea that players may be responsible for introducing thematic concerns through their play very interesting. It fits with my approach, creating a game-world in which the adventurers are enmeshed in an environment filled with genre tropes off of which to play.