PDA

View Full Version : Paladins, AL, & Playing Style Differences: A Pro-Compromise Approach



The Neoclassic
2009-09-02, 10:00 AM
This is a tangent from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123278), where it is being stated that players with different playing styles should not attempt to play together. This is not an idea to which I subscribe at all (except for radical cases regarding how serious one wants to take the game, for example), so here's a thread to discuss how compromise can be used. How can players and DMs mesh different playing styles, rather than simply saying "I want to play like this and everyone else must too or else I QUIT!"?


What are you going to do when your Simulationist/Narrativist-leaning player latches on to the alignment system and/or code of conduct and says- "that thief needs to stop looting bodies, or I will leave the party"? This is a direct result of GNS conflict stemming from incoherent design, and can be avoided by jettisoning aspects of the rules which don't accord with a given mode of play- How is this not an insight with practical implications?


Then you have them try to work out an IC solution, and if that doesn't work, discuss it OOC? The thief might do it behind the paladin's back in the future, or agree to give some of it to charity (if the paladin is the sort who'll compromise, which I realise many won't). Perhaps somehow the taint of death/evil can be removed from the looted items at a temple if the paladin is somehow concerned about taint. If both players enjoy roleplaying, the thief might even make an impassioned speech explaining how his behavior in no way contradicts the paladin's moral code, but in fact is the righteous use of items once used to spread evil. Now these items are being given to those who need them, those who rightfully earned them, and are turned towards good purposes, perhaps even helping fix some of the damage which their owner caused! If this remains a big issue, have more encounters with monsters or individuals who don't give much treasure, and make up for the thief and the party's losses in other areas, such as bounties, rewards from rulers or religious institutions, etc. If this STILL remains a problem with both players (or either player) unwilling to compromise at all ("I will never, ever allow anyone in the party to take an item from a dead creature" without a DAMN good explanation), then you need new players. Unless you like difficult ones that much. :smallamused:

I guess I don't see how knowing GNS theory helps one come up with such resolutions, or somehow resolves it (especially since its point is that different playing styles can't mesh or something like that? maybe?). Knowing your player's motivations and approaches is important, but I guess I've never needed three categories to plop them into to help me figure that out.

EDIT: If you're saying this is an issue of game design, I guess I've never run into the paladin's code where they state you can't allow your party members to loot the dead. Only thing I recall like that was Oriental Adventures mentioning that wasn't culturally acceptable for most Asian-flavored games.

So, that would be example #1. Does anyone think it's unreasonable to ask the paladin and thief to attempt to find an IC or OOC solution, or do most of you think that giving up (or, rather, never playing together in the first place) is a better idea? Heck, I know for a lot of us, assembling a group of players can take a bit of searching, so having to reject 2/3rds of potential players because "Sorry, I'm N but you're G/S!" would be devastating. And I personally like a bit of variety. :smallwink:

Morty
2009-09-02, 10:03 AM
It's prefectly atteptable to expect players to compromise at a gaming table. If both players aren't willing to change their concepts so that the group works without unwanted inter-party conflicts at every session, they won't be able to play. They'll have the satisfaction of not giving up their precious ideas and concepts, but they won't have a gaming session. Sometimes, two characters won't work together, and such a situation can be encountered in any system.

kamikasei
2009-09-02, 10:06 AM
I'd be interested in seeing what a GNS advocate (Jill, if she reads this thread) would consider a suitable introduction to the topic. While I could google something up, I'd rather see what those putting the model forward consider to be a good summary of their views.

The Neoclassic
2009-09-02, 10:09 AM
I'd be interested in seeing what a GNS advocate (Jill, if she reads this thread) would consider a suitable introduction to the topic. While I could google something up, I'd rather see what those putting the model forward consider to be a good summary of their views.

Follow the link to the original thread? I mean, if you're talking about the GNS approach; Jill spent quite a lot of time and words fleshing out her opinions (with that approach) on the proper way to deal with paladins and intraparty conflict. If you mean introduction to compromise... Well, this was started because I was told that, from the GNS view, compromise is silly and won't work in these situations. But, yeah, if you want Jill's summary of GNS views, just read through the linked thread. I didn't want to copy/paste all of it because it was quite long. :smallsmile:

Saph
2009-09-02, 10:10 AM
So, that would be example #1. Does anyone think it's unreasonable to ask the paladin and thief to attempt to find an IC or OOC solution!

*ahem*

NO!

It's not unreasonable. In fact, learning to make compromises is pretty much the ONLY functional solution if you want to be able to hold a gaming group together. In fact, scratch that - if you can't learn to make compromises between these sort of things, you won't be able to hold any kind of group together for long. It's a skill that's just as important in real life as it is in RPGs. You chat about it, you let the people in question talk it out, you try out solutions, and you find something that works.

Yora
2009-09-02, 10:37 AM
I encourage my players to develop the differences that arise between characters.
Of course, the characters should be somewhat compatible in the first place, but when they don't actively attempt to annoy the other players all the time, I think it's fine.
"I have an evil thief, and I stab every prisoner and steal from my party members" in a group of mostly good characters is a no-brainer (though I often have to reign back at least one player in about every group). But if the conflicts are not so much about what the group does but how they do it, I think it adds a lot to the game.

And if it's a mostly chaotic and partially evil group, I encourage them to kill other PC until we have a group that works reasonably well together. :smallbiggrin:

I think it's actually anoying when other players give a troublesome PC a character shield. If the person is a burden for the group, they should get rid of him. Or the player in question has to realize he has to have his character supress his desires if he wants to stay accepted by the other party members.

kamikasei
2009-09-02, 10:58 AM
Follow the link to the original thread? I mean, if you're talking about the GNS approach; Jill spent quite a lot of time and words fleshing out her opinions (with that approach) on the proper way to deal with paladins and intraparty conflict.

I feel I'm better able to reason about a model if I see it in the abstract and work out how it applies for myself, than if I have only the result of how it's being applied to a specific argument. Well, I'll take another look at the thread and see.

As to compromise: it does help to have a clear idea of what you're comprimising between, and a model like GNS could, in principle, be helpful in identifying those elements.

The Neoclassic
2009-09-02, 12:46 PM
I feel I'm better able to reason about a model if I see it in the abstract and work out how it applies for myself, than if I have only the result of how it's being applied to a specific argument. Well, I'll take another look at the thread and see.

Oh, so the basis of GNS theory in general? That... google? Or ask Samurai Jill? I admit I don't know much about it.


As to compromise: it does help to have a clear idea of what you're comprimising between, and a model like GNS could, in principle, be helpful in identifying those elements.

In theory, yes, but at least Samurai Jill tells me that the model tells us that compromise isn't plausible. :smalltongue:

I think the best approach is to ask players why they do what they do and listen for both what they say and any connotations to their claims. For example, look at the differences and motives you could glean from these three answers:

DM: Why are you opposed to the rogue looting corpses?

Paladin Player: My character believes that when evil creatures die, their taint remains on their items. They aren't pure, and they retain the essence of evil.
Paladin Player: It's gross.
Paladin Player: It's wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. Those possessions do not automatically become ours simply because we slaughtered their owner.

The first answer seems a rather reasonable player, who'll probably be very easy to work something out with. He clearly states what his problem is, but states it's "My character" who has an issue with it, showing that he doesn't necessarily believe that himself nor is extraordinarily attached to the notion. Of course, his character decision should still be respected, but chances are he'd be happy to work something out.

The second answer suggests a player who hasn't thought too much about the decision, perhaps just latching onto it as "Something that seems like an idea a paladin would hold" or else applying some personal belief to the game world. Asking them to elaborate (and hence encouraging them to think more about it) could have them open up more, and hopefully be open to a compromise.

The third answer suggests a paladin with Kantian morals, and possibly a player who subscribes to them as well. Here, it might be best to discuss the matter OOC, as with such an uncompromising IC attitude, the paladin and rogue will not be able to resolve it in-game.

These are just examples, of course, and require some assumptions. However, asking more clarifying questions and working to a compromise will probably work for any of these three paladin players, allowing them to still have an enjoyable experience without entirely stepping on the rogue's fun or plans. Absolute, OOC unwillingness to compromise, no matter what their goal or playing style, makes someone (in my opinion) a bad player, and they'll find it extremely difficult to find any group they (and others playing with them) are happy in. No specific theory is needed for this, just the ability to listen, ask questions, and a bit of creativity to find a reasonable middle ground. :smallsmile:

Kalirren
2009-09-03, 01:09 AM
I've taken a look at the Edwards models (GNS, the Threefold, the Big) and I find that they don't really help me understand much. I found the GENder model to be much more useful in organizing my mental architecture regarding RP. (Unfortunately it's also more difficult to google for, but there you have it. If you're interested, try this for size. (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN05.html))

Roughly speaking, the GNS model breaks all of gaming down into three core patterns, Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. Gamism and Narrativism are well defined. The former is characterized by a social gaming contract centered around the players having fun by using stat blocks of their creation to address challenges. The latter is characterized by a social gaming contract centered around the players creating characters with strong narrative premises that are addressed throughout gameplay. Simulationism, unfortunately, is very ill-defined compared to the other two, often serves as a catch-all group, and "it has been suggested that a Simulationist player is a Gamist who wants to be Narrativist but it to afraid to make the commitment and uses the complexity of the rules as a security blanket."

The real wacko part of the model, in my understanding, is that it then goes on to claim, with much pontificating and without much evidence from actual play, that these three core patterns form largely mutually exclusive "modes" of play, that these modes are comprehensive of all gameplay, and that system design has to choose between catering to one of these three modes of play. These are big, big assertions.

On the whole, I don't buy the theory. The purported divisions between the modes aren't neat, the axes of evaluation aren't independent, and (perhaps most convincingly) I know of no one in all of the roleplaying communities in which I participate who has not heard of the theory and arrives at it independently. You, (Neoclassic,) on the other hand, arrived independently at the basics of the GENder model. That did a lot to legitimize it in my view.

But I think I've offered far more than my fair share of judgment about the GNS model. Edward's writings are at the Forge, if you're interested, you should read them yourself. I personally found it interesting to read him as a way of looking at how uncompromising people tend to view the games they play.

To return to the question of paladinhood, I find that the Narrativist problem of the 3e paladin is quite real; as I mentioned in that thread, the class mechanics discourage exploration of the class premise. They're too inflexible, all or nothing. If it were me, I'd probably introduce some mechanic of power points for the paladin, where they recover power from performing deeds in line with their ethos, and lose it for sucking. Or if I wanted to keep the all or nothing for some reason, I would rewrite the "class" as a (removable) subtype. I have used the former solution with some success in a past game in which I was exploring the role of a paladin in detail, and it really helps; suddenly, if the paladin's player decides to threaten to group with leaving, or cutting his support, it's an IC thing, no longer a de facto OOC necessity, and that tends to make everyone involved far easier to accommodate.

Aik
2009-09-03, 04:51 AM
Here is my favourite explanation of GNS - by no means the most thorough but at least the most clear (taken from Vincent Baker's roleplaying theory, hardcore (http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html) page):



So you have some people sitting around and talking. Some of the things they say are about fictional characters in a fictional world. During the conversation the characters and their world aren't static: the people don't simply describe them in increasing detail, they (also) have them do things and interact. They create situations - dynamic arrangements of characters and setting elements - and resolve them into new situations.

They may or may not have formal procedures for this part of the conversation, but the simple fact that it consistently happens reveals some sort of structure. If they didn't have an effective way to negotiate the evolution of situation to situation, their conversation would stall or crash.

Why are they doing this? What do they get out of it? For now, let's limit ourselves to three possibilities: they want to Say Something (in a lit 101 sense), they want to Prove Themselves, or they want to Be There. What they want to say, in what way they want to prove themselves, or where precisely they want to be varies to the particular person in the particular moment. Are there other possibilities? Maybe. Certainly these three cover an enormous variety, especially as their nuanced particulars combine in an actual group of people in actual play.

Over time, that is, over many many in-game situations, play will either fulfill the players' creative agendas or fail to fulfill them. Do they have that discussion? Do they prove themselves or let themselves down? Are they "there"? As in pretty much any kind of emergent pattern thingy, whether the game fulfills the players' creative agendas depends on but isn't predictable from the specific structure they've got for negotiating situations. No individual situation's evolution or resolution can reveal a) what the players' creative agendas are or b) whether they're being fulfilled. Especially, limiting your observation to the in-game contents of individual situations will certainly blind you to what the players are actually getting out of the game.

That's GNS in a page.

I don't think I've said anything here that Ron Edwards hasn't been saying. I do think that I've said it in mostly my own words.


Here (http://isabout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/what-gns-theory-claims/) is a more recent and more in depth explanation. The theory has changed quite a deal since the articles on The Forge, so be wary of that (also that Ron Edward's writing isn't exactly ... thrilling ... probably doesn't help).

A quick disclaimer that I don't claim that GNS/The Big Model is the One Great Truth of roleplaying - but I find it an entirely plausible and more importantly useful framework. Without this way of thinking a lot of the 'new school' indie games wouldn't have been developed, and they do successfully support one of these seperate modes of play. It has definately affected the play of our group and, I think, for the better.

So to answer the OP (which is a loaded question if ever I saw one...):
Well, for starters I'm not convinced that the scenario is a creative agenda clash, but for the sake of argument let's just say that it is. The solution is not to go 'Oh, well, we're Gamists - we don't play with smelly Narrativists' - that's stupid.

However, if the majority of players are grooving kicking arse and taking loot, and there's this one guy who isn't and is actively getting in the way of the fun by breaking up the party/pissing on everyone's parade - and can't be persuaded to stop doing this OOC - wouldn't it be just better for everyone if he didn't show up? We can then go and have fun wracking up a body count and he can go and find some other game that better suits his interests.

There is no such thing as a 'Narrativist' or a 'Gamist' or a 'Simulationist' - there are just games where these creative agendas are being fulfilled and ones where they're not. Sure, someone might prefer a certain style - but there's nothing preventing them from enjoying a different one and that's far more constructive than pushing theirs in where it isn't being helpful. Our group mostly plays coherent narrativism, but we've had coherent sim games in the past and they were lots of fun.

So the point here is that the guy playing the paladin doesn't have to stick to his guns and just push for narrativism - he's completely free to adjust to the group/current game's dominant agenda. If he can't stand it and it's causing a problem then yes - he should stop playing. Obviously discussing these problems beforehand would be sane and sensible.

Diamondeye
2009-09-03, 12:27 PM
There are a number of ways to resolve the problem of the paladin very simply:

1) ditch alignment and objective morality and simply make the paladin a form of warrior who recieves some powers from dieties. The paladin only "falls" by displeasing the diety, not by violating the "code"

2) Limit the alignments characters can play to either preclude the Paladin or preclude characters that are a serious problem (i.e. no evil and possibly no CN characters)

The problem with ditching objective morality is of course handling alignment-based mechanics

The problem with banning certain alignments is that it still doesn't get everyone on the same sheet of music regarding what actions fall under what alignment.

IC conflict between characters isn't really a problem in and of itself; there's no reason everything should be hunky-dory between the characters all the time.

The real problem is OOC conflict, which tends to arise from one of 3 sources:

1) The paladin player is constrained into actions that are antagonistic to other characters by the paladin code. This creates a problem in that if certain other characters play their characters accurately, there's an IC problem with why they stay together at all. The group as a whole gets frusterated because everything is about how they can accomadate the paladin's moral code all the time.

The easiest solution here, to me is to replace the detect evil ability with something else, and by not requiring the Paladin to seek out evidence of evil in his companions. If confronted with evidence of evil, the paladin may still not look the other way, but since he now lacks the auto-detect for it, he is not compelled to seek out evil in his companions where there is no evidence for it. If he presses a rogue on "How'd you come by those emeralds" the rogue can say "none of your buisness" without the paladin "turning the other cheek" by NOT detecting evil since now he can't.

2) The paladin player plays Miko/stick-up-the-behind style paladins, or tends to see practically everything adventurers do as potentially evil; i.e. "We killed the orcs who were raiding farms but that's evil because they weren't doing it RIGHT THEN and it's therefore excessive force and we should have tried to turn them from evil."

This is basically a problem of lack of imagination. Again, removing detect evil helps a lot. The second problem, however, is that the player is usually imposing personal/modern ideas about what is acceptable. I've seen many discussions here where what's "acceptable for paladins" is more similar to the behavior we expect of modern police officers, and really doesn't fit well with either a midieval mindset or that of a fantasy world where powerful, supernatural evil is a real, observable force.

The thing to do for this is to determine why the player is doing this. They may be so afraid of falling that they see almost any action as unacceptable because they think that it might result in some evil in some way they hadn't considered, and therefore cause them to fall. If so, one can assure them that you won't yank the carpet out from under them without a fairly clear action -> evil relationship that isn't convoluted, unclear, or a trap.

On the other hand, the player may simply have very firm attachments to RL standards of what they think is good and evil. In that case, you simply have to explain that we set an arbitrary "good/evil" and "lawful/chaotic" designations for game purposes, and they are objective within the game regardless of RL feelings on the matter. If the player's RL morality is so ingrained that this makes them uncomfortable, roleplaying may not be the activity for them. For example, a person who objects to fighting in any form and is constitutionally incapable of accepting that good characters can fight might not really enjoy D&D that much.

The final reason is that the player is seeing chaotic actions as evil. For example, stealing is a chaotic act that can be good, neutral or evil depending on who steals from who nd why, but because it's prohibited by the lawful part of a paladin's alignment, they may see it as evil. In this case, you need to clarify what differentiates the axes of the alignment graph to the player.

3) Another player or players get a kick out of antagonizing the paladin

Some people have real problems with rules and authority and import them into the game. They may see in the paladin things they don't like in real life whether that's religious figures or organizations they dislike, parents, the police, etc. These are the sorts of people who think that individual freedom is good (it's chaotic) and that people being forced to live under rules that benefit the "greater good" are a "dark side of good". Some of these players may have serious issues with people playing paladins at all, seeing it as the other player trying to "run" the party or impose authority on them personally.

In an objective alignment system, there is no "dark side of good" any more than there is a "light side of evil" or "lawful side of chaotic". Personal freedom is not good or evil; what's good or evil is what one does with it. Rules for society are not good or evil, it's whether they benfit all, or only those in power that determine good and evil in an objective alignment system.

This is the worst sort of situation to deal with because the player is playing out their real-life problems. Some peopel may go out of their way to make the "goody-two-shoes" fall because to them it is a way of validating their belief that those claiming to be "good" are all hypocrites, really evil inside, or whatever. It's only aggravated if the paladin player is very into the role of morality cop for the party.

The best solution here is to make the player validate why their character is antagonistic towards the paladin. Look for cues that indicate they are imposing real-world values of their own on the game. If, for example, the player respods "well, my character doesn't like the fact that the paladin disregards the inherent right to property of others by insiting they pay taxes which are really just robbery by the state" the player may be imposing modern ideas about liberty and politics on the character. Do such philosophical concepts fit the game world? Do they fit the intelligence and education of the character and the other aspects o their personality and background?

In all cases, the bottom line is to get everyone on the same sheet of music regarding what's good and evil for game purposes. Once everyone understands the basics of the standard and realizes it's there to facilitate gmeplay, not explore real-world issues, you can move on to the more practical problem of the paladin enforcing morality on others. That you can address pretty easily by reducing his ability to learn of them.