Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 7760412" data-attributes="member: 30518">Although I design board and card games as a business, if I want to play a game for pleasure I play tabletop RPGs. They are naturally co-operative games but with human opposition, more or less unique, because computer RPG “GMs” cannot begin to provide the flexibility and freedom of action that a good human GM offers.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK][ATTACH]101770[/ATTACH] Image courtesy of <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/gamers-round-gambling-cube-beetle-1953419/" target="_blank">Pixabay</a>.Although I design board and card games as a business, if I want to play a game for pleasure I play D&D. When I was 25 or so I gave up seriously playing games against other people - I didn’t like how it led me to behave. What I like about tabletop RPGs is that they are naturally co-operative games but with human opposition. In that respect they are more or less unique, because computer RPG “GMs” cannot begin to provide the flexibility and freedom of action that a good human GM offers. Cooperative games have become quite popular amongst tabletop game hobbyists, beginning with Pandemic. They are actually puzzles, a multiplayer equivalent of a solo game, because the programmed opposition has so little capability. The programming is usually achieved through a deck of cards, though you can roll dice against tables as well. It is inevitably primitive and predictable. Nonetheless, the games are popular because contemporaries often dislike to compete directly against others, and cooperation/sharing is a strong characteristic of the younger generation.[HQ]“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.” Bertrand Russell[/HQ]Cooperative games are becoming more popular in video, where programming of the opposition can be far more complex and sophisticated than programming for tabletop games, as in the “Director” of Left 4 Dead. RPGs are naturally cooperative: the most common situation across all kinds of RPGs is a group doing some semi-military task and needing to cooperate to survive. Just about everyone’s first goal in playing an RPG is to stay alive. My second goal is to make sure everyone in my party stays alive. However, if the GM arranges a campaign where the nominal opposition is not really dangerous, then the players can get into competing against themselves. (If the opposition is really dangerous the non-cooperative group is not going to survive.) Some game rules make it easier to be cooperative than otherwise. In 1e/2e D&D you had to be cooperative because the magic users were so squishy, you had to protect them the way a professional American football team protects its quarterback. The magic users do much more damage to the enemy than any other class; it is difficult to survive without them. 4e D&D emphasized character combat powers that benefitted other, usually nearby, characters. That made cooperation easier and obviously beneficial. On the other hand, when each character is more or less a one-man army (3e D&D), cooperation is much less necessary. Given the flexibility of tabletop RPGs, some people turn them into competitive exercises. I recall playing at a shop in London in the late 70s where the player characters spent almost all their time carefully watching one another, and didn’t worry much about the non-player opposition. I didn’t enjoy it, but some people do. I’ve been in all-neutral-and-evil parties that were much more cooperative. I’ve always thought it odd for Good-aligned characters to tolerate Evil aligned characters in their party, because it was inevitably going to result in “watch the other party members, don’t worry about the monsters.” I had a cleric cast Know Alignment on everyone in the party the day before we went anywhere (day before so as not to lose the spell slot), both as a means of trying to discover spies and doppelgängers, and as a means of making sure there were no Evil characters. We’d use ESP as well. And if we found Evil, we charmed the creep and used them as the “point man”. Let the Evil scum take the risks, there’s a war on, isn’t there?[HQ]“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.”   Helen Keller[/HQ]This draconian way of doing things came from my conception of heroic fantasy as a war between Good and Evil. I wanted to be the (heroic?) soldier fighting for my god(s), fighting to save good people from bad things. And  “Lawful Good is not Stupid.” Your average FRPG player wants to be a chaotic neutral thug, able to get away with whatever they wish because they’re not officially Evil, even though behavior is sometimes evil. Those folks don’t survive very long when I GM, because they soon become officially Evil. And Good-aligned parties don’t tolerate Evil characters. Nowadays there’s a lot less black-and-white and a lot more gray relativism both in society and in RPG play. The entire idea of alignment, intended to discourage petty thugishness, is often frowned upon. Campaigns are often “All About Me” rather than about the larger situation of the campaign. So it’s more natural to be the chaotic neutral thug. And even “Howling Chaots” can be cooperative – or can they? This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/list.php?author/30518-lewpuls" target="_blank">lewpuls</a>) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his <a href="http://www.pulsiphergames.com" target="_blank">web site</a> and his <a href="https://www.udemy.com/user/drlewispulsipher/" target="_blank">Udemy course landing page</a>. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/ensider/columnists.html" target="_blank">please contact us</a>!</blockquote>

Verification