Madrigality
I was going to post this as a comment in response to sithlorddarren's impassioned post, but as I'm not a Friend, I can't. Still, I think it's a valid question and I would love to hear what people think:
( PC/PC conflict, oh jolly )
( PC/PC conflict, oh jolly )
You're asking specifically should be allowed to do about it rather than should do about it? My answers to the two are very different.
Should be allowed -- by the staff? By the other players? Everyone and anyone?
Allowed how, which I guess means potentially not allowed how? Explicit game rules mechanics, explicit game conduct mechanics, request/coercian IG or OOG....
My gut reaction is strongly that no one should try to forbid you in an OOG way to play your character IG as you see appropriate, or give you excessive amounts of shit for doing so. This goes both ways: I don't like to hear about staff pressuring players in an OOG way to not act the way they feel their characters would, nor to hear people get OOG shit for wanting to act against other characters who have done the kinds of bad things you list above, nor to hear people get OOG shit for doing those things in the first place. In this whole Madrigal storm, I've never gotten the impression that any player was acting other than in character, and generally with righteous intentions.
However, that doesn't mean there aren't cases where taking OOG factors (like other people's fun) into consideration aren't appropriate, and possibly moderating IG behavior accordingly. I believe very often there's a middle ground, where OOG factors can be respected without breaking believability to an unacceptable degree.
I guess in general I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want within the game that its rules permit -- but that doesn't mean they should do whatever they can. If it is possible by the rules for a PC to kill another PC, the player can choose to do that killing, but that doesn't mean they aren't being a jerk to do it.
I realize that unfortunately there are some truly bad eggs out there, and sometimes it may be necessary for the health of an entire game to put slightly greater checks or pressure on rather than taking the consequences of letting that person continue on in the game. But that's a case of deliberate sabotage and player-banning, I think, and is not what you are talking about here.
Also -- the best response in the situation, and how much to let OOG factors or fear of destroying people's fun have an impact, can really vary by situation. So many times, I've heard someone say 'I totally expected people to kill my character for that, and I was ok with that' -- but then other times someone really doesn't believe they were doing something game-destroying or that would warrant the loss of the character, and gets very upset if other people seem to insist they will make it impossible for that person to continue their character.
Reply
From an OOG standpoint, nobody should pressure anyone to play or not play their character as they believe the character should be.
From an IG standpoint, there may be a lot of pressure to act or not act in particular ways, both from other PC's and from staff.
And of course, viewing things from both the player and staff perspectives, game balance, other people's feelings and fun both IG and OOG and what becomes onerous or unpleasant generally needs to be kept in mind.
However, if a player chooses to play their character in such a way as they decide to take actions that are probable or even likely to upset other characters, especially actions that they realize are probably going to have IG repercussions, then it becomes fairly unreasonable for them to protest when those repercussions fall on them, be they from staff or other players. Characters have to take responsibility for their actions, words and choices. If a character has chosen a path that is likely to make other characters want to kill them, then they made that choice. If they choose actions that endanger, horrify and offend the other characters, especially in the case where they KNOW their actions will have that effect, then whatever response the other characters have is appropriate.
You cannot take the geek version of political correctness too far. People, be they players or characters, have to have and take responsibility for their choices and pay the penalties that they incur by having made those choices. You can't have a character that constantly causes others to be in danger who is never called on it or never faces any punishment for it just because the player might not have fun. That player chose to have their characters take actions that could or did impact the fun of any number of other players, and cannot in all fairness call foul if they get back what they're handing out.
Some people never seem to realize that repercussions happen - which rather astounds me and I wonder how they're making it in real life. Some people simply rely on that "oh, that wouldn't be fun" reaction to, literally, get away with just about anything. *shrug* While I personally pay attention to the consequences of ruining another person's fun, I also strongly feel that what a character asks for in a game, they should get, and the player should be (hopefully) mature enough to recognize that they put themselves in that position. Of course, some people just pitch fits when their character is treated in a manner they view as unfair, without ever considering what was "fair" for other players. It takes all kinds :-)
Reply
However, I think it's important to realize that in many games there may not be one single defined morality or version of what is "right." What happens in a situation where a player does something because their character believes it is the right or best thing to do, and to not do it would be not playing the character properly, but some or many other characters don't agree that it is the right thing to do? In that case, you have two or more legitimately conflicting versions of what is the "right" thing to do. Just because some characters are horrified or offended by something that another character does, doesn't mean that it is objectively wrong or necessarily deserving of punishment.
One person's fun may sometimes result in another person's plotline getting stepped on, even inadvertently, but while that may be annoying for the person who got stepped on, it doesn't necessarily mean it was morally wrong to do so. On an Out of game level, I think it's important to make the distinction between the player who takes action that may have adverse effect on other players, but it's in-character and for legitimate character reasons, and That Guy who doesn't really care about the integrity of the game and just likes to screw things up and cause trouble on the principle that it would be more "fun" to do so.
Of course, in-character, you may not be able to make that distinction. As for remedies to egregious conduct by PCs, I find this an interesting phenomenon. (And seeing how a game can totally break down ino howling chaos when there's no defined system of justice also makes me feel better about my future profession. ;-)) Very few boffer larps ever really successfully integrate a system of justice or conflict resolution into their game, which makes it difficult for PCs to ever successfully punish wrongdoers. Also, in many games, the PCs do not agree on who has or should have the authority to serve as judge and decision makers. Is it PCs? NPCs? PCs of one group but not another? PCs of all groups? I have heard that NERO had some form of "legal code" and punishment by nobles but that it never really worked out well. And I believe that most games either turn egregious conduct over to NPCs (as, for example, I might expect to happen in Radiant Dragon, which is based on feudal Japan), or work out some form of more or less chaotic mob rule by the PCs.
Personally, (as the law student mendoza was trying desperately not to be) I'd be very interested in seeing a game develop some kind of actual, simple, workable system of conflict resolution. What kind of system could there be that would handle both conduct that violated some agreed-upon norm or law, and would also be able to resolve those situations where two players disagreed on what is actually the "right" course of action?
Reply
Radiant Dragon will probably employ a similar model, even more strictly enforced in all likelihood. Less injunction against killing, but rule of law will lie strictly within the purvue of the higher nobility where PC's are concerned I'm betting.
As for Mob rule and the drastic fallout that frequently results, IMHO that fault lies with two parties:
- First, the players for failing to create their own rule of law, or at least a standing council for dealing with severe infractions.
- Second, the plot committees for almost universally encouraging and strongly rewarding evil players for their actions with strong plot arcs and direct access to a great deal of personal power.
This second issue makes it VERY important that players develop a system for finding and - quite frankly - savagely destroying Evil or even openly Chaotic characters in their midst. It's not remotely worth the risk of putting up with them.
For those of you who enjoy playing evil or disruptively chaotic characters? I have no problem with that - you keep my life interesting - but I suggest you keep as low a profile as you can manage, because some day the rest of the players will turn on you and wipe you off the face of the earth - and it will inevitably be one day later than they should have done it.
Reply
More later, when I've had time to compose a thoughtful reply worthy of your comment.
Reply
I think this issue gets back, like so many other things, to questions of expectation and communication.
A huge thing that breaks people's fun is having their expectations confounded: the world works this way, this is what is considered appropriate IG behavior, this is what is considered appropriate player behavior.... What really gets people upset is when there's a mismatch in reasonable expectation of an NPC response and what actually happens, and/or when there's a mismatch in reasonable expectation of a PC response and what actually happens. If the staff makes clear that a vicious and brutal regime frowns on unpatriotic talk, and PCs loudly and publicly disparage the monarch in front of the tax collector, the believability of the game and the feeling of trust the PCs have in the background material they were given will probably suffer. Similarly, if a setting is presented with 'people who follow this dark cult are deemed evil by all and sundry and destroyed', it is understandable that people may be upset if such people then turn up and are not deemed evil and destroyed without clear reasons why there should be an exception made.
On the other side, being blindsided by unexpected repercussions can really destroy someone's fun. Someone death strikes a foe on the field, when there's no information in the game materials to suggest that would be a bad idea, and NPC goons come in and kill the character repeatedly until s/he is permed? Not cool. Not particularly cool either if it's the other PCs who say 'we think killing anything makes you a murderer who needs to be destroyed!' and kill you repeatedly until you perm. While there will always be some expectation mismatch, people will get more upset the bigger the consequences; the number one consquences I can think of is player banning, the number two, the inability to play the given character any more. Therefore, if there's any doubt in whether the consequences could reasonably have been expected, extreme repercussions are likely to produce a much greater outcry.
Main point here is that restrictions on what you can do may not be an uncool thing for a game, as long as they are made clear so that they do not suddenly confound expections at a later time, and so people can get involved with the game or not as they choose, keeping those things in mind. Endgame clearly is trying to define some level of expection around appropriate PC behavior and response, and that's cool. The nTeraction system puts some limits on what actions people can take (no cutting off hands or setting things on fire!), and that's fine too, as long as it's clearly laid out. Whether to appreciate or dislike particular restrictions on action or response that are set up in advance may be an individual opinion, but confounding expectations that have already been set will almost always cause problems.
Reply
Leave a comment