PDA

View Full Version : [Game Theory] Less Realism, Less Party Tension



Dust
2011-03-15, 01:01 PM
As the title of this thread explicitly states, I have come to a conclusion I'd like to share with everyone. It is, simply put, this;

The more awesome the system allows your characters to be, the less infighting will occur.

Before we can go any further, I'd like to say that these conclusions are based on the premise that you have a group who actively explores new possibilities instead of re-making the same character over and over or avoiding the rules like the plague and having someone else make their character for them. Furthermore, I hope we can all agree that virtuous and heroic characters are more likely to get along with one another and find a common goal than evil, self-serving or spiteful characters. I'd also like to note that I am VERY tired currently, and this post may have incomplete sentences, gratuitous spelling errors, and be difficult to follow at times.

Over the course of the next few points, I'll explain how I have reached the conclusion that flexible, non-realistic systems promote group cohesion. Let's go ahead and dive right in.


The Tony Montana Effect
In real life, we understand how society is structured and that achievers are rarely altruistic.
Get the money, get the power, be successful - that's the formula we've been taught time and time again.
In gaming, the further we deviate from the formulas we understand work in real life, the greater the likelihood our characters will value other things. It doesn't take much, mind you - most players don't show up to a game of Serenity, looking to avoid taking risks and haul farm equipment from planet to planet. But all the GMs who complain that 'their characters aren't heroic' and can't understand why? It's because we say 'be heroic' and offer incentive...but the game is so rooted in the rules we understand work in real life, the words fall flat since they're so contrary to what we've been taught.
D&D is a prime example. Collect money for equipment. Magic items equal power. Power equals success. And if anyone opposes you...well, shut them down in whatever way you see fit.
If you introduce a game system where survival has long and convoluted rules and is a constant, looming threat, there's good odds you'll wind up with a few characters deep into moral grey territory. If, on the other hand, you present a system where the PCs are astral travellers who cannot actually murder someone else and take their stuff, the odds of you winding up with Murderman are far reduced.


The Rousseau Effect
Whether or not you believe that mankind is inherently evil, it's hard to disagree that in games with a high emphasis on creating realistic characters are more likely to breed archetypes that walk a grey moral line. Cynics, corrupt officials, sexists, racists, money-hungry bastards and all shapes and sizes of jerkhole; the real world is full of 'em, and so, too, are games that strive to emulate the real world.
Let's take Star Wars and Firefly/Serenity. In one we have Han Solo, in the other, Jayne Cobb. They're both womanizing, self-obsessed creeps in their respective mediums - however, Star Wars is set in a universe where bounty hunters fly around on jet packs, robots can disable planet-sized space stations, and Jabba the Hutt could theoretically learn to use The Force. Serenity was set in a Wild West 'verse, and folks there knew the rules - sleep with a gun under your pillow and always demand money up front.
You might argue that this is a stylistic choice, or simply a difference in tone between the two films, but I'd disagree with you when it comes to a tabletop comparison. If you want proof, sit down with your friends and announce you'll be running a deadly, grim and gritty horror game, and ask them to make two different characters, one with each system - Serenity and Star Wars. I guarantee you that the system that uses the more realistic rules will produce more vicious characters.


The Optimus Prime Effect
When many people sit down and create a character, they focus on the mechanics side of things before the roleplaying side. I'm not saying this is good, merely that it remains a fact and there's probably one or two such individuals in your gaming group. In systems where you can be overwhelmed with build options, such as a Superhero game, these players are more likely to stumble upon something they want to imagine their character being able to do that is cool. This has two benefits. Firstly, you're more likely to get a character that focuses initially on a THING instead of a personality archetype, which helps players who consistently lean towards playing scumbags to get out of that rut.
Secondly, and this is the weird one, our brains are wired in such a way that we come to associate words with one another at a subconscious level. For almost everyone, we associate 'cool' with positive, awesome and unlikely things such as kicking the head off a robot shark, and less so with betraying a close friends. Even inherently unsavoury people follow this mindset. Cool is putting on shades and walking slowly away from an explosion (even though we always groan upon seeing this tired cliché, there's a reason it's still so prevalent), or fighting while dangling from a helicopter.
So when we're presented with a system where we CAN engage in chopper-fisticuffs and step away from the restrictive boundaries of real life, we're more likely to build a character CAPABLE of such things. And ultimately, since we're hardwired to associate 'cool' with 'good,' our characters tend to be braver and better the more they can kick reality to the curb.
Remember Neo from the Matrix? A prime example of what I'm talking about here - Thomas Anderson was a cog in the machine of society, criminal record, problems with authority, and more importantly, terrified of the garbage that was happening to him. A realistic character in a realistic setting, screaming and fighting and distrustful. As soon as he started to learn kung-fu and leap tall buildings, the hangups of humanity started to fade as well.
You might contemplate a character who is dark and brooding, prone to taking advantage of other people or perhaps quick to anger, and suffers from a painful past. In a realistic setting, in a realistic system, the character will be prone to falling to their darker side, and often lash out at other people.
But take that same character and give them the ability to breath in space, and give them bonus dice for saying "I'm Batman" once per game session, and all of a sudden things become less dark and more lighthearted. We didn't change the character's mood or personality, merely their capabilities and how stuff works.


The Kamina Effect
And lastly, the big one. I've talked a lot about how realistic rules produce morally-ambiguous characters, and bad dudes tend to get along less often than good dudes, but there's more to it than that. As we all know, the biggest defining characteristic in whether or not a group of PCs will see eye-to-eye on things....boils down to mutual respect.
Even the most polar opposite of characters - the Paladin and the Necromancer, let's say - can find ways to work together if the mutual-respect criteria is met. They may not like the methods of the other, but they can't deny the other has situations where they shine.
And just like before, the more out there the system, the more CRAZINESS you can pull off within the confines of the rules, the more likely you are to garner some respect from your allies.
It's hard to respect Tim the Accountant, or even Joel the Part-Time Death Star Station Mechanic. But as soon as Tim the Accountant catches a wrench in his teeth, he's stepped away from the mundane and it becomes easier to see him as more than just another class-and-race-combination, easily-replicable PC. He caught a wrench in his teeth, man - what else can he do? With interest comes communication, with communication comes respect.

Kick out logic and do the impossible. Beat the unbeatable. It's easier to respect a PC who defies reality as we know it - even if the rest of the party can, too - than one who suffers from familiar failings and struggles with mundane tasks instead of superhuman ones.

So, again, in summary - the further we get away from the Real World™ as we know it when it comes to gaming, the less likely players will recreate exaggerated aspects of humanity, and the greed and foibles that come with such things. This is turn leads to a greater likelihood for characters that we can categorize as 'awesome' - and with that sentiment comes respect, which in turn leads to cooperation.

Thanks for reading.

:cool:

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 02:05 PM
You...have an amazingly solid point. I'm now somehow surprised that I've never noticed this before.

The more epic and unrealistic the campaign, the less party conflict has been a thing.

Eldan
2011-03-15, 02:08 PM
Actually...

Have you ever read any of the God or Nation games on this forum? Even those which start all the players as potential allies against a common enemy disintegrate into total war about two turns later.

The Big Dice
2011-03-15, 02:09 PM
I've always found that party conflict is more a function of player conflict being carried out by means of character issues than of anything else. If the people at the table don't get along other than for the sake of the game, then tensions will tend to build between characters rather than players. Especially if it's the only game in town.

That said, this was an interesting, well thought out essay that made some solid points.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-15, 02:15 PM
You can be pretty awesome in D&D, it can hardly be called realistic, and I have had had some great intraparty friction resulting from ethical and moral differances between characters. I would have to see this in action in say, Exalted or Scion to really test it out, but I don't see it exactly changing human nature. A thief in Exalted is more likely to steal the sun from the sky then a beggers coins, but the actions are still theft. A God of Assassins in Scion might kill your grandparents before you were born rather then a knife in the night, but you're still murdered. Some people like to play morally ambiguous and downright reprehensible people*, the system isn't going to change that.
*Not that there is anything wrong with that in the right player group

Sipex
2011-03-15, 02:17 PM
I don't have a lot of experience with PbP games, especially of various systems but I can see your point. It will be interesting to watch this thread.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 02:24 PM
Some people like to play morally ambiguous and downright reprehensible people*, the system isn't going to change that.
*Not that there is anything wrong with that in the right player group

This is true...but they're off being awesome by stealing from other people. Not stealing from the party.

It's always been the grittier, low fantasy games that tend toward inter-party conflict for me. I've had a LOT more outright pvp at low levels than at high, and I've never had to kill an entire party at high levels in D&D, and in D&D, the level of realism drops off pretty rapidly with levels.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-15, 02:41 PM
This is true...but they're off being awesome by stealing from other people. Not stealing from the party.

It's always been the grittier, low fantasy games that tend toward inter-party conflict for me. I've had a LOT more outright pvp at low levels than at high, and I've never had to kill an entire party at high levels in D&D, and in D&D, the level of realism drops off pretty rapidly with levels.
Grittier/= realistic. Just because everyone has permastubble and pouches, lots of pouches, doesn't make things realistic.
And did you not get the part about D&D? Intraparty conflcit i.e. Party Tension. Examples, Paladin and Thief. His class was Rogue, but by golly, he was a Thief. He may have rarely stole from the party, but stealing from temples of the god the Paladin worshipped certainly caused Party Tension.
LN Ranger all in favour of public executions to maintain order verses, pretty much everyone else actually, plus additional conflict with the more chaotic members of the party over looting, plus the Rangers disavowal of magic.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-15, 02:43 PM
I've always found that party conflict is more a function of player conflict being carried out by means of character issues than of anything else. If the people at the table don't get along other than for the sake of the game, then tensions will tend to build between characters rather than players. Especially if it's the only game in town.

That said, this was an interesting, well thought out essay that made some solid points.
To the contrary - I've found intraparty conflicts arise from simple conflicts in character goals. Of course, people who have OOC conflicts can carry those into games as well but I typically game with friends and still see plenty of intraparty conflict.

In re the essay
While an interesting point, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Consider a system where a given character can only be awesome at the expense of his allies. Such a system would allow Exalted-level amounts of awesomeness yet breed nothing but intraparty conflict due to conflict over limited resources.

Personally, I've found intraparty conflict to arise from the following sources:
(1) Conflicts of Play Style - Players who like to constantly be doing things will conflict with Players who prefer to think things over first. Similarly, Players who prefer combat will conflict with Players who like talking everything to death.

(2) Conflicts of Character Motivation - Characters interested in gold will be less than happy when the justice-motivated leader keeps volunteering the party for charity missions. Likewise, the Paladin isn't going to be happy when his fellow party members are constantly engaging in shady deals for a little extra coin.

(3) Problem Players - Some Players just breed conflict. It could be that they hold grudges from OOC and transfer it in-game. Or they might enjoy playing anti-social or "useless" characters that end up getting the party in trouble for no reason and generally making the game less fun for everyone.Broad categories, yes, but they cover most of the common situations and suggest solutions. Games themselves can, of course, create intraparty conflict by design - but beyond a certain point rules alone lose their effectiveness on managing such conflicts.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 02:44 PM
Oh, there are other sources of conflict than direct pvp actions, sure...but pvp is certainly one source. Decreasing that is one way to decrease party tensions.

Pentachoron
2011-03-15, 02:49 PM
I tend to find most party conflict to be as a result of dissonance in the goals of individual players as regards to what they want out of the game. That or as a result of when one player seems strangely dedicated to making a character that will not work with half of the party (I will no longer play with one person because I've yet to ever see them not make a character like that.)

GolemsVoice
2011-03-15, 02:51 PM
Kick out logic and do the impossible. Beat the unbeatable. It's easier to respect a PC who defies reality as we know it - even if the rest of the party can, too - than one who suffers from familiar failings and struggles with mundane tasks instead of superhuman ones.

First, let me say that you make very good points, and well thought-out arguments. But I think here you're only partially right. Because just like with your other examples, failing is depending on the game played.

In a game like D&D, where characters leave realistic feats behind pretty soon, characters failing at things will likely look more "like a fool" than in a lower powered setting.

So, if Ragnar, Sword of the Seven Stars, can't even bash down that flmisy door, he'll look like a fool. But if Mira, an ordinary policewoman forced to investigate supernatural murders, fails to break the hold of a posessed attacker, that's life for you. Ordinary persons failing in situations they aren't meant for are less likely to lose respect.

kyoryu
2011-03-15, 02:52 PM
Actually, from a (mathematical) game-theoretic standpoint there may be something to this.

As power levels increase, conflict becomes more a matter of rocket tag than anything else, and the preparation that an opponent is capable of increases. So at low levels of power, the ability to prep, catch your opponent unawares, and take them out effectively with a high level of probability is higher.

At high levels of power, going against someone gets closer to a 50/50 chance - and you stand to lose far, far more than you will likely gain. At higher levels of D&D, at least, it's likely you're far more invested in your character in terms of time spent levelling, while in a grittier game you know that your next character, even if you lose, will likely be near in power to the one you lost.

Eldan
2011-03-15, 02:55 PM
To use the same quote Golem's Voice used:


Kick out logic and do the impossible. Beat the unbeatable. It's easier to respect a PC who defies reality as we know it - even if the rest of the party can, too - than one who suffers from familiar failings and struggles with mundane tasks instead of superhuman ones.

I don't really agree with this. I don't respect people for being born with awesome natural power and being able to shoot hellfire out of their hands and wrestle robotic grizzly bears on the wings of a bomber in the middle of the london blitz.
I respect people for effort, for ethics, for heroics, for their intelligence, perhaps. All of which often seems to fall behind in high-powered games. I've seen a lot of games where high-powered characters quickly became super-bullies.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-15, 02:55 PM
Oh, there are other sources of conflict than direct pvp actions, sure...but pvp is certainly one source. Decreasing that is one way to decrease party tensions. That's rather a tautology isn't it? Unless the game explicitly spells out, "this can't be used on your fellow players", the only rule in Core 3.X D&D I can think of like that is some of the Social Skills, everything that is PvE is also potentially PvP. If someone is going after a fellow player character, you already HAVE Conflict with a capital C.

kyoryu
2011-03-15, 03:00 PM
To use the same quote Golem's Voice used:



I don't really agree with this. I don't respect people for being born with awesome natural power and being able to shoot hellfire out of their hands and wrestle robotic grizzly bears on the wings of a bomber in the middle of the london blitz.
I respect people for effort, for ethics, for heroics, for their intelligence, perhaps. All of which often seems to fall behind in high-powered games. I've seen a lot of games where high-powered characters quickly became super-bullies.

It's a matter of perspective on what is "cool." To some people, being cool is a matter of being awesome - being the biggest, the best, the strongest, the fastest, the smartest, or whatever.

To others, being cool is about doing awesome things, even if you're *not* awesome. It's about having the guts to stand up to the people that are bigger and stronger, and finding a way to defeat them. It's about personal sacrifice and sheer determination.

A paladin might be cool to the first group because he is awesomely mighty, wields the power of his god, and defends a village from a pack of demons.

The second group might think a paladin is cool because he stands up to a pack of demons attacking a village, giving them time to escape - even though he knows he will die in the process.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 03:02 PM
Nah. Consider the classic example of the rogue, stealing the party loot. I've seen it in games. Multiple players. It's a perfect case of using an ability(usually slight of hand, bluff etc) on another player that almost inevitably leads to conflict.

It doesn't seem to come up in more heroic, less realistic games like 7th Sea. For one, money and things being the source of power is a very realistic approach to take. In the real world, the difference between a rich person and a poor one is immense. When characters are extremely heroic, and can be essentially as badass with any old sword, then what is there to steal that matters? It's less likely to happen, and if it does happen, it's less likely to matter.

I've seen the same players play both games, and end up playing fairly differently in both. I'm convinced that choice of system is a large influence on the results of the game.

Eldan
2011-03-15, 03:07 PM
It's a matter of perspective on what is "cool." To some people, being cool is a matter of being awesome - being the biggest, the best, the strongest, the fastest, the smartest, or whatever.

To others, being cool is about doing awesome things, even if you're *not* awesome. It's about having the guts to stand up to the people that are bigger and stronger, and finding a way to defeat them. It's about personal sacrifice and sheer determination.

A paladin might be cool to the first group because he is awesomely mighty, wields the power of his god, and defends a village from a pack of demons.

The second group might think a paladin is cool because he stands up to a pack of demons attacking a village, giving them time to escape - even though he knows he will die in the process.

Ah, stop right there. I never used the word cool. Of course high power levels are cool. If a movie pulled off that stunt with the grizzly bear and the bomber I talked above and did it well (or at least not too badly)? I'd sit in the cinema and grin like mad.

I talked about respect. You can be cool and not be worthy of respect, in my book. It's two entirely different things, and one exists independently of the other.

kyoryu
2011-03-15, 03:10 PM
It doesn't seem to come up in more heroic, less realistic games like 7th Sea. For one, money and things being the source of power is a very realistic approach to take. In the real world, the difference between a rich person and a poor one is immense. When characters are extremely heroic, and can be essentially as badass with any old sword, then what is there to steal that matters? It's less likely to happen, and if it does happen, it's less likely to matter.


But now you're describing a scenario where intra-party conflict has less potential gain, again tilting the decision matrix away from initiation of conflict.

If you had a high-powered, higly heroic game where it was trivial to gain power by defeating another PC, and doing so could be done with a high degree of success - I'd bet you would see even higher levels of conflict, barring metagame reasons to not engage in conflict.

"Heroic" games probably do have less conflict - because in heroic style games, pretty much everyone can get anything they want, anyway. So doing one thing or another doesn't really represent a loss to anyone. Lower-powered games tend to have greater opportunity costs attached to actions and/or distributions of loot, so promote greater party conflict.

The ultimate generalization is probably closer to something like: The closer character power in a party is to a zero-sum game, the more intra-party conflict should be expected.


Ah, stop right there. I never used the word cool. Of course high power levels are cool. If a movie pulled off that stunt with the grizzly bear and the bomber I talked above and did it well (or at least not too badly)? I'd sit in the cinema and grin like mad.

I talked about respect. You can be cool and not be worthy of respect, in my book. It's two entirely different things, and one exists independently of the other.

Fair enough. I was using the terms generally and broadly, not intending to get into a semantics discussion. I'll use "respect" and "cool" by your definitions for differentiation purposes.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 03:14 PM
That seems an accurate summary. When you're a level 20 wizard, you can get loot by killing an ally or an enemy. Killing people is easy. Why not kill enemies? Get the loot from elsewhere, and now you're better off.

But if the party gets loot based on WBL, then the optimal solution is to collect as much WBL as possible for yourself.

Tavar
2011-03-15, 03:15 PM
True, but things that lead to respect are normally actions that are, well, disadvantageous. The Paladin holding the line against the demon horde, even though it'll end in his death, for example. The more, well, realistic settings, they don't make such characters as attractive, because they often have large penalties(DnD and the Paladin's code, for example). Less realistic rule sets tend to have fewer penalties, largely because such penalties are part of our view of what real life imposes.

Eldan
2011-03-15, 03:17 PM
Not necessarily.

Call of Cthulhu is far from realistic, yet penalties are hefty, and players aren't really expected to "win".

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 03:20 PM
Not necessarily.

Call of Cthulhu is far from realistic, yet penalties are hefty, and players aren't really expected to "win".

True. However, motivations line up. Having other players there to soak "bad stuff" instead of you matters. Well, it can matter. You're generally better off with allies than alone, at any rate.

And generally, stealing a few bucks or something is going to do jack-all to help you "win".

I haven't played enough CoC to get a statistically relevant sample, but I don't feel like it's a game in which party members tend to be at each others throats. Well, at least the players aren't.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-15, 03:28 PM
OK, Paranoia then. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-03-15, 03:29 PM
Entirely true. It is, however, both gritty and unrealistic.

I'd like to bring up the god game example again, as I've played and DMed in several of those.

For those unfamiliar with that kind of game: it's a forum game where players play literal gods. You rule near-absolutely over a domain, and one or several aspects of reality. Mortal races cover before the mere mention of your name, and you can lay waste to civilizations with your avatar.

And yet, players are at each other's throats constantly. Fighting over worshippers, artefacts, temples, or just because the others are there. No matter how strong the external dangers (creatures from outside reality attacking, the fabric of space and time unravelling, the titans waking up to wage war on creation...)

Darth Stabber
2011-03-15, 03:34 PM
I could be the group that I play it, but as long as kender are banned, Intraparty conflict is almost always kept to a minimum, and when present is 95% verbal. Players playing morally grey characters is not exactly fought, infact my current group is all CN. And they are a wierd CN that will attempt to reform the evil to good, while they have no-compunctions against murder or raising undead hordes.

Some previous groups
L5R - Snarky Ratling, Posterboy Samurai, an Quiet Shugenja no one realizes studying maho.
SWSE - Poster boy jedi, grey jedi, former sith soldier jerk, force sensitive gunslinger that acted like a paladin, and a Psychotic droid that was an amusing amalgam of HK-47 and Bender.

As you can see the jerks and the paragons can mix peacefully. The key is to get a group of people who genuinely enjoy each others company.

FACT: People who like hanging around with the other players are less likely to be a problem, and won't cause problems on purpose.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-15, 03:35 PM
OK, Paranoia then. :smalltongue:

Paranoia is a rather odd and special case in a few respects. It has a lot of character conflict...but it's very specifically built to promote that. So, in it's case, it isn't a bad thing at all, and I don't generally see player dislike spill over between games and what not...though that does happen in more serious games.

I'd say that player conflict in paranoia is about as serious as player conflict in halo multiplayer. It's what the games about, and it isn't an unwanted side effect.

Yukitsu
2011-03-15, 06:05 PM
To use the same quote Golem's Voice used:



I don't really agree with this. I don't respect people for being born with awesome natural power and being able to shoot hellfire out of their hands and wrestle robotic grizzly bears on the wings of a bomber in the middle of the london blitz.
I respect people for effort, for ethics, for heroics, for their intelligence, perhaps. All of which often seems to fall behind in high-powered games. I've seen a lot of games where high-powered characters quickly became super-bullies.

Kamina, the quoted individual, is actually a very mundane individual, and when it came down to it, only borderline competent. (Simon was by far the more "succeed just because he can" character). What he did was face down everything, none of that "You're supposed to run from this encounter" BS. And I agree, this is generally how a campaign should be played. I find there's party v. DM problems when the DM writes failure into things, and even more so when they defy him on it.

Totally Guy
2011-03-15, 06:13 PM
Since we got mechanics that let us handle it on a level playing field, intra-party conflicts have become the most awesome things in the games we play. Can't get enough of them.

Veyr
2011-03-15, 06:24 PM
I found your argument compelling and your writing enjoyable, personally. I think people have fair points regarding its weaknesses, perhaps, but nonetheless I think this is a very good thought that people should read.

Dust
2011-03-15, 06:50 PM
Since we got mechanics that let us handle it on a level playing field, intra-party conflicts have become the most awesome things in the games we play. Can't get enough of them.
Mind if I ask what you're playing that allows this 'level playing field?' I always enjoy such systems.

GolemsVoice
2011-03-15, 09:44 PM
Another thing that I can add from personal experience is that in some systems, failing is expected, and part of the roleplaying experience.

When I play D&D, I want to play superhuman characters (whích doesn't mean that I don't work on making them believable characters, but that's another discussion), doing superhuman things, and being GOOD at it. So, yes, my rogue should be able to find all traps, and open all doors, he's the most agile, nimble, and clever, etc.... Sure, this is somewhat exaggerated, but generally what I want from D&D.

But in our WoD hunters game, we play very mundane characters. Failing is natural here, and we integrate this in our roleplaying, and sometimes the greatest moments can arise from a failed attempt at doing something.

Of course, it must be said that, no matter the system, we generally avoid intra-party conflict that goes beyond threats or arguments, and we rarely play a game that is set out with the premise of betrayal and infighting. There may be differences about HOW we achieve something, but never really WHAT we want to achieve, and that we want to achieve it together.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-15, 10:13 PM
Paranoia is a rather odd and special case in a few respects. It has a lot of character conflict...but it's very specifically built to promote that. So, in it's case, it isn't a bad thing at all, and I don't generally see player dislike spill over between games and what not...though that does happen in more serious games.

I'd say that player conflict in paranoia is about as serious as player conflict in halo multiplayer. It's what the games about, and it isn't an unwanted side effect.

It's not a question of whether it it taken seriously, it is a question whether it happens at all. And it does. Paranoia is somewhat a special case because it is designed around intraparty conflict, but in a way, since every game is different, all are special cases. Nonetheless, it is a none realistic game that is rife with such conflict. Either Paranoia is the exception that proves the rule, which I doubt from the plethora of other examples other members and I have put forth, or it is one of many that show that realism isn't the primary drive party conflict in games.
Some games of greater and lesser realism may have ways of discouraging it, but I do not see anywhere near an exact correlation.

Merk
2011-03-15, 11:28 PM
From games I've DMed and played in, I'd agree that there tends to be less party conflict in more "heroic" games. In fact, even within the scope of the same campaign, the amount of party tension seemed to decrease as the overall power level of the characters increased. My guess is that the characters began to mature in the mechanical sense and so players got to do "their thing" more often, and hence were satisfied.

SiuiS
2011-03-16, 12:52 AM
The Kamina Effect
And lastly, the big one. I've talked a lot about how realistic rules produce morally-ambiguous characters, and bad dudes tend to get along less often than good dudes, but there's more to it than that. As we all know, the biggest defining characteristic in whether or not a group of PCs will see eye-to-eye on things....boils down to mutual respect.
Even the most polar opposite of characters - the Paladin and the Necromancer, let's say - can find ways to work together if the mutual-respect criteria is met. They may not like the methods of the other, but they can't deny the other has situations where they shine.
And just like before, the more out there the system, the more CRAZINESS you can pull off within the confines of the rules, the more likely you are to garner some respect from your allies.
It's hard to respect Tim the Accountant, or even Joel the Part-Time Death Star Station Mechanic. But as soon as Tim the Accountant catches a wrench in his teeth, he's stepped away from the mundane and it becomes easier to see him as more than just another class-and-race-combination, easily-replicable PC. He caught a wrench in his teeth, man - what else can he do? With interest comes communication, with communication comes respect.

quoted For Truth. I have been that necromancer, and I have been that paladin. And we both have trouble with the guy who gets no respect at home/work so he tries to force it at the table.

Fhaolan
2011-03-16, 01:28 AM
In my personal experieince, I find intra-party conflict springs more from the players than the system or setting. If at least one player in the group finds intra-party conflict fun or at least amusing, then it will happen regardless of the 'realism' level of the campaign world.

I've run a game with mundane humans as Roman 'police' [members of the Vigiles Urbani, for those with a historical interest] tracking down an arsonist and serial killer. No magic, no superpowers, nothing. And there was minimal intra-party conflict. Yes, the characters would get upset with each other, and occasionally had conflicting motivations, but they were all on the same team and worked together to complete the scenario.

I've also run a game with ultra-cosmic, reality re-writing Gods, and there was nothing I could do to stop these characters from constantly backstabbing both figuratively and literally. Heck, one of them would constantly make copies of *himself* just so he could attempt to kill himself [The logic being no matter which one won, he'd still be the winner.] The problem here seemed that no matter the external challenge, the players felt that the scenario was so fantastical and the characters were of such power that the only real challenge was each other. Nothing else could compete.

For some players I find that the more fantastical the game, the less connection and empathy they have with the characters. They become more like pieces on a game board than 'characters', and as such they have difficulty coming up with reasons to *not* engage in party-destroying actions when the whim takes them. This is not true for all players, of course. Some can't enjoy a game unless enough fantastic elements exist in it. Every player has different things they enjoy in a game.

Oh, and then there are passive-aggressive players who dislike some styles of game enough to deliberately sabotage the game in an effort to 'punish' the other players and the GM for daring to try it, but won't say up front that they don't like that game style. This applies to all styles of game, from grim'n'gritty to epic powertrips. I've run into a good number of these types of players... I'll be honest, I *was* one of these players back in the 80's.

Totally Guy
2011-03-16, 07:53 AM
Mind if I ask what you're playing that allows this 'level playing field?' I always enjoy such systems.

Well, after my D&D game went under I switched to the Burning Wheel system. It's got a really good subsystem for resolving arguments between characters whether PC vs. NPC or PC vs. PC.

Before we'd get stubborn with each other and we'd talk about it for ages in and out of character and eventually someone would get bored and back down. It was really annoying. We had characters trying to kill each other because that was the only way they could influence the other player's character.

Now that we are confident that we can resolve an intra-party conflict we have opened up the game to so many more directions and interactions and agreements that nobody saw coming.

Killer Angel
2011-03-16, 08:18 AM
For those unfamiliar with that kind of game: it's a forum game where players play literal gods. You rule near-absolutely over a domain, and one or several aspects of reality. Mortal races cover before the mere mention of your name, and you can lay waste to civilizations with your avatar.

And yet, players are at each other's throats constantly. Fighting over worshippers, artefacts, temples, or just because the others are there. No matter how strong the external dangers (creatures from outside reality attacking, the fabric of space and time unravelling, the titans waking up to wage war on creation...)

Exactly as the Gods of ancient mithologies. They're acting in character. :smallsmile:

Eldan
2011-03-16, 08:19 AM
Of course. But it's also PvP (arguably, again, what the game was designed for) in a high-powered game.

Aricandor
2011-03-16, 08:25 AM
Sounds fairly reasonable and in line with what I've experienced while playing D&D, OWoD Vampire and a Swedish fantasy game called Eon which is designed attemptíng to be as realistic as possible (just off the bat for an example of the latter, slow and agonizing deaths by bleeding out, organ damage or infection are by far the most common ways for characters to go).

Players in my group have never attempted to kill or even seriously hurt each other in D&D or OWoD (though they sometimes did attempt to get leverage on each other "just in case"), while in Eon there have been many cases of violence, theft, psychological terror and passive-aggressive retribution between characters wishing to get their way or advantages over the others.

I'm guessing the deviances would occur when considering systems or campaigns that are either designed, or percieved by the players as set up for player competition over limited resources (the earlier god game example) or towards a goal (Paranoia).
A notable situation would also be when players create characters that in the setting would just logically be at each others' throats, like the classic elves vs. dwarves conflict, or being from warring or hostile nations. Conflict then is usually inevitable.

Of course this is anecdotal at best, and different play groups may have had other experiences. Still, it's the best contribution I can make to the whole idea. :smallsmile:

So, my bottom line thought would be that the theory holds fairly true as long as the system or campaign itself doesn't directly encourage players to compete with each other, be it over power, resources, favours or a goal that only one can reach.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-16, 09:20 AM
Problem 1 - The claim that Intraparty conflict is a bad thing, except in paranoia. I disagree with that claim, and posit that like red wine it is good for you in moderation. 4 people who work together (and all sleep in the same rope trick) without incident are going to have issues, and when tempers flare over life and death stuff, even a priest has a chance at throwing the first punch. And this is quite natural and can enhance the roleplaying if done maturely and adjudicated neutrally.

Problem 2 - Realism's effect is not as pronounced as the effects of tight pacing. If you keep an adventure tightly paced and keep the characters off balance, they will put aside petty differences, atleast for a while. While they're in town between adventures, let them pound the tar out of each other.

potatocubed
2011-03-16, 09:29 AM
Well, after my D&D game went under I switched to the Burning Wheel system. It's got a really good subsystem for resolving arguments between characters whether PC vs. NPC or PC vs. PC.

It's true; Burning Wheel is good for this sort of thing in a way that D&D isn't.

Digression: The primary driver is the Burning W maxim of "Back down or roll the dice." All conflict is played out in the game rules. This is possible because Burning Wheel has a robust mechanism for convincing other characters of the truth of your argument, rather than just 'lol diplomacy'.

Britter
2011-03-16, 10:08 AM
Since we got mechanics that let us handle it on a level playing field, intra-party conflicts have become the most awesome things in the games we play. Can't get enough of them.

This, a thousand times.

Now, I will clarify that intra-party conflict, and conflict between characters in game is fine. Conflict between PLAYERS that gets carried into the game is not cool, regardless of system.

But once you have a mechanic that supports intra-party conflict, you do honestly begin to relish it, and mine it as a GM in order to create interesting conflicts and sitautions to exploit.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-16, 02:42 PM
Take my chance to plug Hellcats and Hockeysticks. It encourages intraparty conflict. It's also about an all girls private school in England. It is a fun silly game, but you need a different mindset than most of the crunchy games talked about on this forum.

faceroll
2011-03-17, 12:38 PM
Explain WoW guild drama please.

stainboy
2011-03-17, 02:51 PM
Problem 1 - The claim that Intraparty conflict is a bad thing, except in paranoia. I disagree with that claim, and posit that like red wine it is good for you in moderation. 4 people who work together (and all sleep in the same rope trick) without incident are going to have issues, and when tempers flare over life and death stuff, even a priest has a chance at throwing the first punch. And this is quite natural and can enhance the roleplaying if done maturely and adjudicated neutrally.


Some systems don't handle intraparty conflict well. PvP in D&D tends to devolve into a contest of the players' system mastery. You wouldn't want lots of PvP in Serenity RPG because it doesn't have a hard limit on actions per round.

Come to think of it I don't know of a single system that I actually like for PvP. Maybe my standards are just too high, I don't know.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-17, 02:55 PM
Come to think of it I don't know of a single system that I actually like for PvP. Maybe my standards are just too high, I don't know.
Try Mountain Witch or Paranoia! :smallbiggrin:

stainboy
2011-03-17, 02:58 PM
Ok, I guess I mean games designed for campaign play. Paranoia and HoL support PvP just fine but it's more about the tone of the game than the rules.

I don't know Mountain Witch. Looks interesting.

Britter
2011-03-17, 03:14 PM
PvP in Burning Wheel is quite a lot of fun. It handles it very well, both socially and martially, in my opinion.

I do agree that most systems are just bad at PvP, and very few systems have any sort of actual meaningful social mechanics. with meaningful socail comabt, for lack of a better term, you can enjoy quite a lot of player vs. player conflict with minimal amounts of murder.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 03:32 PM
As you get increasing levels of PvP, your campaign stability decreases. It's hard running a campaign when nobody of the original group is left alive, and nobody remembers past the last plot hook.

Hence the tendency of Paranoia and such to be one shots. They're very enjoyable one shots, true, but I've never seen a long campaign in the system.

OverThoughtName
2011-03-17, 03:39 PM
The more awesome the system allows your characters to be, the less infighting will occur.

I've always found this to be mostly true, except replace "system" with "DM" and "allows" with "encourages". Usually, my players bond over how epic they make their plans. It's how I get them to role-play; the more awesome, the more likely you are to win. However, once in a while I've seen players get out of control on their own. Usually, us regulars don't fall in line behind them, instead choosing to try to diffuse it at the source, whether that cause is a poor player or a poor DM.

As a final note, though, at the end of campaigns, all gloves come off. Once we're finished with the "work together" part, it's okay for the "kill the guy opposite-aligned to you" part to come out. Tends to wrap things up nicely.

Xuincherguixe
2011-03-17, 04:34 PM
Most of the time I try to create characters who are team players, and can interact well with the the game setting.

... And somehow my characters still manage to create conflict.

It'd be tempting to say that it's because I tend towards pacifists. (Just because he's evil doesn't mean he doesn't have feelings!) But I also get the feeling the I consider the consequences of choices much more than others.


I'll never understand why someone would make a character who would rather just sit at home and not do anything exciting. (This happens more on text based roleplaying games).

Even Evil characters should be loyal to the team. Really, this is just common sense. You're playing a game where you're on a team of adventurers, so make someone that thrives in that environment.


I think it's more appropriate to say that conflict will only happen when the parties involved don't actively try to avoid it.


This is not to say that conflict is an inherently bad thing. But even then the conflict should be manageable. Such as when the thief wants to rob the evil baron's house and the Paladin wants to go summon the army of justice to free the village. This conflict is easy to manage. Because they can also look for evidence in his manor! Justice armies march only by court order after all. Still, it's a good example of a conflict.

How much conflict would there be in a grim, gritty realistic game... and everyone is playing mostly nice people? It is after all the funnest time to be a good guy. At least if your GM isn't a railroader.

stainboy
2011-03-17, 06:21 PM
I do agree that most systems are just bad at PvP, and very few systems have any sort of actual meaningful social mechanics. with meaningful socail comabt, for lack of a better term, you can enjoy quite a lot of player vs. player conflict with minimal amounts of murder.

I don't have much experience with social combat systems, but here's my concern. If I can dictate another PC's actions by casting a spell or injecting him with Mind Control Serum, that's fine. He's completely justified in trying to kill me to defend himself, and if he resists or the power wears off he'll probably come after me for revenge. But if I can dictate another PC's actions just by talking at him, there's nothing a combat- or infiltration-focused PC can do about it without breaking character. Anyone else who isn't specialized in social combat might as well just hand me their character sheets and go watch TV.

What do games with social combat systems do to get around this?

Britter
2011-03-17, 09:02 PM
I don't have much experience with social combat systems, but here's my concern. If I can dictate another PC's actions by casting a spell or injecting him with Mind Control Serum, that's fine. He's completely justified in trying to kill me to defend himself, and if he resists or the power wears off he'll probably come after me for revenge. But if I can dictate another PC's actions just by talking at him, there's nothing a combat- or infiltration-focused PC can do about it without breaking character. Anyone else who isn't specialized in social combat might as well just hand me their character sheets and go watch TV.

What do games with social combat systems do to get around this?

Well, as far as Burning Wheel handles it, it is very unlikely to get through a Duel of Wits without your argument taking a few hits, meaning you are likely to have to compromise with your opponent in some way. And a Duel of Wits is not mind control. You can choose to walk away, or escalate to violence. You are only bound by the things you agree to as part of the compromise conditions at the end.

It is, honestly, somewhat difficult to explain without actually showing you the entire process. Suffice to say that even though a socially focused character is more likely to get what they want in an argument, nothing prevents the person they want to argue with from saying "no, not gonna go there" or deciding not to accept the compromise and stabbing the other party in the face.

Totally Guy
2011-03-18, 07:53 AM
As you get increasing levels of PvP, your campaign stability decreases. It's hard running a campaign when nobody of the original group is left alive, and nobody remembers past the last plot hook.

I'm in a PbP Mouse Guard game at the moment and we've met my guy's nemesis drunk and helpless outside in the wild.

I want to parade the guy back to the town, drunk, so that everybody will see me rescuing a mouse in spite of our grudge.

My teammate wants me to know that discretion is the better part of valour.

So we're arguing about it. I'm not sure whether I'll win or not. Neither of us are particularly skilled at arguing but I have the numbers on my side.

We're not killing each other. We're both intently watching where this plot hook, me meeting my nemesis, will go. It's engrossing! And I still am playing to win.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-18, 11:42 AM
This... mini-article... is in response to another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190988) that I just browsed through. The advice it gives is perfectly reasonable within a set of certain assumptions: The assumption being made here is that play is about a unified team of PCs who advance in lockstep through an essentially linear obstacle course toward some predecided conclusion, and the players neither know nor care what motivates them do so.

Obviously, this assumption isn't universally valid. So I'll take time to outline a couple of broad 'corrections' here.


1. If you want realistic characters to work together, take the time to establish the motivations that cause them to work together in the first place. Maybe they're old war buddies. Maybe they're family. Maybe they have a common goal that implies their co-operation for the time being. Maybe they're both loyal to some higher authority that sends them on a mission. Maybe they're hostages. Maybe they're a master and apprentice. Maybe each one has skills that the other needs. If the players don't know why their characters should be working together, it's because you didn't do your homework.

Of course, this implies that character generation cannot be a solo activity. It is not acceptable for every player to go off and roll up a character in isolation- they have to sit down at the table together and consult eachother on what their background motivations, relationships, and specialties are going to be.

If you want to take Firefly/Serenity as an example, take a look at the show, not the RPG. Every character aboard Serenity has well-defined reasons for being there and working together. Mal and Zoe are war buddies. Jayne gets a better deal than with other merc companies. Zoe and Wash are married. Simon and River are trying to steer clear of the law, and Inara is running from something. Shepherd Book wants to redeem himself and spread the word. Kaylee loves the sense of adventure. They all have useful specialties in terms of skills and abilities- combat, tracking, piloting, social skills, medicine, engineering, etc, so each has some incentive to keep the others alive and kicking.

Are these motivations necessarily ironclad? No, of course not. A fair portion of the drama in this show comes from disagreements between the characters and how those are resolved. So even if they do have serious differences, why is this inherently a problem?

2. If characters do have a serious disagreement, use a social conflict. There are plenty of systems that offer interesting mechanics for role-playing and resolving involved arguments between the characters. Check out the Duel of Wits (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/images/e/e5/Dow_95_108.pdf) if you want a concrete example. Rolling dice to settle a debate may seem artificial, but it's no more abstract than 90% of combat mechanics you'll find, and provides an objective method for getting players on the same page, storywise.

2. It is okay to split the party. Okay, so characters might still part ways on bad terms. Why is this inherently a problem? What's wrong with characters going their separate ways? Systems that don't demand a lot of advance preparation are perfectly capable of accomodating improvisational play of this type, and if both players appreciate the motives that led to this departure, and know that the GM can handle this, they might both enjoy it. Inter-character drama is not the same thing as inter-player drama.

3. It is okay for characters to die. If the fundamental purpose of play, i.e, what the system is built to explore/support/handle, or what the players get a primary kick out of, is for the characters to achieve pre-specified goals and get steadily stronger more-or-less indefinitely, then obviously allowing permanent character-death is a stupid idea. But that's not neccesarily the case.

In fact, I'd go further than that- systems which eliminate the possibility of character-death during combat make combat dramatically meaningless. You essentially have to let the characters win in order for play to continue, which means there is no sense of tension or gravity to the proceedings.

So what, exactly, can motivate players to risk their characters' life and limb? Acting on the basis of their underlying motivations, with actual, informed, knowledge of consequences. When players know, consciously or otherwise, that their actions have no real long-term repercussions- which is exactly what a predecided storyline implies- then all they have to focus on is, basically, showing off whatever combination of overblown stunts their characters can pull off in the fray. But if the players know that whether they fight or flee can have a profound impact on the large-scale shape of events, their characters may very well be willing to fight- and die- for their beliefs.

Of course, this requires that you let the players know what the long-term consequences of their characters' decisions will be, and you have to be absolutely honest about it. There cannot be a predecided plot. You cannot have any sacred cows- unkillable NPCs or ineluctable events. You have to present situations that offer genuine freedom- not just in the physical sense, but in the sense of tugging upon several of the PCs' motives at once, so that there's more than one valid response to the stimuli presented. And let their choice really impact what happens.


In other words, the problem here isn't with realism per se. The problem is the selective application of realism- keeping the elements which are irritating while disallowing the elements which are empowering. In reality, we do things for a reason, and there is no magical force herding us toward some predecided fate- we have, at least in theory, the ability to change things based on our beliefs. The problem arises when you try to combine the mortality of realism with the impotence of a railroad campaign.

...And that's about all I have to say about that.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-18, 11:45 AM
As you get increasing levels of PvP, your campaign stability decreases. It's hard running a campaign when nobody of the original group is left alive...
You're assuming that you need to have a predecided plot structure, and/or that characters need to be functionally immortal. I've opened a counter-thread on the subject here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191371).

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 11:57 AM
They need not be immortal...a few deaths is acceptable. But when PvP gets to the point that nobody from the initial party is still alive, you've sorta lost continuity of the story. Plus, you end up having an increasingly hard time justifying why the group is still together. After all, staying with people that hate you enough to kill you when they get an opportunity is something people only tend to do if given an extremely good reason. Typically plot. Save world, whatever. That's really hard to pull off when nobody's been in the party long enough to, IC, know the plot.

Shinizak
2011-03-18, 12:06 PM
This shouldn't be it's own topic, but very good points though.

Caphi
2011-03-18, 12:15 PM
In fact, I'd go further than that- systems which eliminate the possibility of character-death during combat make combat dramatically meaningless. You essentially have to let the characters win in order for play to continue, which means there is no sense of tension or gravity to the proceedings.

I object. I don't have an objection to the general point on how one should treat character death (encouraged/acceptable/unforgivable), because I think it varies from game to game as much as the GM, players, and plot do. But isn't this implying that whenever combat breaks out, the only possible outcomes are progression or death? Because that much I think is completely false.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 12:18 PM
7th Sea combat almost never involves deaths for PCs. It's not a default part of the rules, and is a big deal.

Failure is definitely possible, though.

dsmiles
2011-03-18, 12:22 PM
You know, your argument may be true in many cases, but certainly not all. Many of groups I've played in, and some that I've DM'ed for have been in gritty and/or realistic games, and in my experience, it's more of a lack of player interpersonal skills that causes party infighting. Just because the characters are "awesome" and "super-heroes" doesn't mean that the player behind that character isn't a total d***.

I've played everything from GURPS, Rolemaster/HARP, and DnD (all editions) to Cyberpunk 2020, Gamma World (original and "4e"), Shadowrun, CoC, and Champions. Party infighting rarely has anything to do with the limitations of the system, or the grittiness or realism of the game.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-18, 12:28 PM
I object. I don't have an objection to the general point on how one should treat character death (encouraged/acceptable/unforgivable), because I think it varies from game to game as much as the GM, players, and plot do. But isn't this implying that whenever combat breaks out, the only possible outcomes are progression or death? Because that much I think is completely false.
I probably overstated the case here- what I should say is that combat which involves no risk is dramatically dead. That is, something has to be at stake if the players don't win. That might be the PCs' lives, whether the hostage gets rescued, whether the artifact is retrieved, etc. etc. etc. The point is that losing is (A) possible and (B) has some form of long-term repercussions.

I should also add that the odds of character death need only be very slight for that to have a big impact on player engagement. (in Dogs in the Vineyard, I think the odds are, at worst, 1% or so, but that's enough.)

Britter
2011-03-18, 12:37 PM
I probably overstated the case here- what I should say is that combat which involves no risk is dramatically dead. That is, something has to be at stake if the players don't win. That might be the PCs' lives, whether the hostage gets rescued, whether the artifact is retrieved, etc. etc. etc. The point is that losing is (A) possible and (B) has some form of long-term repercussions.

I should also add that the odds of character death need only be very slight for that to have a big impact on player engagement. (in Dogs in the Vineyard, I think the odds are, at worst, 1% or so, but that's enough.)

I agree with this. In Burning Wheel, for instance, despite the fact that getting into fights is bad, death is not the most common outcome. Between failing a Steel test and suffering hesitation, and taking a midi or traumatic wound which drops your effective stast to such a low level that you are unlikely to win, the game puts a lot at stake for fights and keeps death from being a given.

frankly, I agree that pvp in games where the only outcome to a fight between PCs is death will be very frustarting.

The Big Dice
2011-03-18, 12:37 PM
7th Sea combat almost never involves deaths for PCs. It's not a default part of the rules, and is a big deal.

Failure is definitely possible, though.
That's because 7th Sea is a good game for modelling a genre. But, it's progenitor system, L5R, and in particular 1st edition L5R, is very different. The two games were in print at around the same time, but 7th Sea is light and swashbuckling. L5R is harder and much more deadly. Because it's modelling a different genre.

It's the difference between Seven Samurai and Pirates of the Carribean.

A well designed RPG often (not always) knows what the schticks of the game's genre are. Those assumptions that often aren't even spoken, but are an essential part of the game.

Realism isn't the problem. And nor is character death. In fact, nine times out of ten, the problem is the people at the table, not the books and sheets they use to play the game.

Pentachoron
2011-03-18, 12:40 PM
Realism isn't the problem. And nor is character death. In fact, nine times out of ten, the problem is the people at the table, not the books and sheets they use to play the game.

This. This. This.

Every one has stories about various games that did and didn't work out, and they're always going to try to extrapolate patterns about the systems/rules/settings, but what it comes down to is the players.

Yora
2011-03-18, 12:40 PM
2. It is okay to split the party. Okay, so characters might still part ways on bad terms. Why is this inherently a problem? What's wrong with characters going their separate ways? Systems that don't demand a lot of advance preparation are perfectly capable of accomodating improvisational play of this type, and if both players appreciate the motives that led to this departure, and know that the GM can handle this, they might both enjoy it. Inter-character drama is not the same thing as inter-player drama.
The problem with splitting the party is usually not, that the remaining groups can't progress with some of the party members unavailable. The real problem is, that you have some of the players sitting at the table with nothing to do, while you have to attend to either one group or the other. That has nothing to do with the system.

Xefas
2011-03-18, 12:48 PM
The problem with splitting the party is usually not, that the remaining groups can't progress with some of the party members unavailable. The real problem is, that you have some of the players sitting at the table with nothing to do, while you have to attend to either one group or the other. That has nothing to do with the system.

I found this to only really be a problem with D&D, or GURPS or similar. With stuff like Dogs in the Vineyard, you can split the party without people get bored because conflicts go fast and are interesting. You aren't spending 2 hours of "I swing! I rolled a 10. I rolled a 5. I hit for 7!"

In a system where conflict takes a maximum of 10 minutes, and your moves are rapid fire back and forth (because Dogs has you roll -almost- all of your dice at the beginning of combat) "I use my belief that anything is justified in the name of love!", "Oh yeah? Well I use my trait for punching adultery-committing sons of *****es in the face...to punch you in the face!", it's not too much of a problem.

Britter
2011-03-18, 12:51 PM
This. This. This.

Every one has stories about various games that did and didn't work out, and they're always going to try to extrapolate patterns about the systems/rules/settings, but what it comes down to is the players.

I agree in part, but I also disagree.

I think that the Big Dice said it very well here:



A well designed RPG often (not always) knows what the schticks of the game's genre are. Those assumptions that often aren't even spoken, but are an essential part of the game.



I think that the biggest problems around the table come from shoe-horning a game into a system that is not designed to support it. For example, though I love my Burning Wheel, I would never use it to simulate comic book super heroes. It would just fall flat on it's face and be a bad game. The system is direly unsuited. I would, however, consider 7th Sea, or Icons, or any number of other light, fun, much less lethal systems for such a game.

Knowing what the intent behind the mechanics and design of a game were is incredibly helpful in determining how to use it.

Nothing drives me more crazy than the assertion that a system can do every type of game well (I tend to hear this from Gurps and 3.5 players the most, but it is a position held by others as well). I do not feel that is the case. Some systems can do more than others, and cross more genre lines, but no system can do everything.

The first challenge, of course, is to make sure that you and the people at your table have similar interests, expectations, and assumptions about the game you are going to play.

The second challenge is to find a system that is in line with those same interests, expectations, and assumptions.

Thats why I have started playing a whole mess of other systems, really...so that I can have a better feel for what they do well and what they do poorly, and therefore select systems that will best serve my needs, depending on what I am running.

The Big Dice
2011-03-18, 01:22 PM
Nothing drives me more crazy than the assertion that a system can do every type of game well (I tend to hear this from Gurps and 3.5 players the most, but it is a position held by others as well). I do not feel that is the case. Some systems can do more than others, and cross more genre lines, but no system can do everything.
A system (and I think there's a clear difference between a system and a game) like GURPS or True20 can do a good job of modelling a huge array of different genre expectations. But there's always going to be places where other systems do things better and where the systems at hand do their thing best.

To me, GURPS is a fantastic gritty fantasy or space opera game. And yes, I did just intend to say gritty space opera :smallyuk: But it's not great for super heroes or James Bond style super spy antics. That's not to say that it can't do those things, just that like any system, there are places GURPS breaks down.

D&D 3.X I don't consider to be a game and I don't think it's particularly good at modelling any genre other than itself. Though the D20 system can be endlessly tweaked and modified to make the core engine of Roll D20, add modifiers, check against Target DC is a versatile one.

But it's just one of many, and there are other alternatives.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 01:37 PM
This. This. This.

Every one has stories about various games that did and didn't work out, and they're always going to try to extrapolate patterns about the systems/rules/settings, but what it comes down to is the players.

Well, sort of. See, no system will really cure bad players. If the players are incapable of getting along, nothing mechanical is gonna fix it.

But good players ARE affected by choice of system. Now, good players tend to have less disruptive pvp even when they DO pvp, but the amount they pvp, and the amount to which doing so distracts them from their plot will vary pretty immensely by system. I've played with the same guys in a *lot* of systems, and it's quite apparent.

And yeah...some systems just do some jobs better. I enjoy 3.5 dungeon crawls, but I wouldn't try to run a 7th Sea world in it(and this is one reason why the d20 7th sea was a terrible botched idea). I likewise wouldn't attempt to do straight dungeon crawling in 7th Sea.

Sure, you *could* do those things, but it's nicer to have a system that promotes what you're trying to do that one where you're fighting it.

Britter
2011-03-18, 01:39 PM
A system (and I think there's a clear difference between a system and a game) like GURPS or True20 can do a good job of modelling a huge array of different genre expectations. But there's always going to be places where other systems do things better and where the systems at hand do their thing best.

To me, GURPS is a fantastic gritty fantasy or space opera game. And yes, I did just intend to say gritty space opera :smallyuk: But it's not great for super heroes or James Bond style super spy antics. That's not to say that it can't do those things, just that like any system, there are places GURPS breaks down.

D&D 3.X I don't consider to be a game and I don't think it's particularly good at modelling any genre other than itself. Though the D20 system can be endlessly tweaked and modified to make the core engine of Roll D20, add modifiers, check against Target DC is a versatile one.

But it's just one of many, and there are other alternatives.

I'm not much of a fan of Gurps or any D20 product (with the notable exception of Mutants and Masterminds, which I think is pretty well done over all). I have used Gurps, years ago, and I actually think you are right on when you say it could do a gritty space opera. But the system lacks a lot fo what I look for in a game these days (rules that reward character development, fewer rolls and faster resolution, more player control of plot/setting elements)

I don't know if I agree that there is a difference between "system" and "game". Thats actually a really interesting point to ponder. I ascribe to the Luke Crane/Jared Sorensen theory that game design is essentially a form of mind control, where you shape behaviors through system-based rewards, but that is definitely not the only way to look at the issue.

As far as 3.5, I agree that it is only really good for 3.5. I am also asthonished by how many people never play any game but. It's a sort of mono-gamism that doesn't exist in any other hobby. No one plays just one video game, or board game, or card game, but a lot of people seem to play just one RPG. Again, if it is fun for you and your group, than rock on and more power to you, but the game is, in my opinion, just not very good. It also teaches a lot of habits and assumptions about RPGs that I disagree with. Ah well. Different strokes, different folks in the end.

erikun
2011-03-18, 01:45 PM
I think that someone in the other thread had the right idea, at least in part. It's not less realism but finite resources, plus a reward for victory, which will encourage party conflict (by the game rules, at least).

Consider your average superhero game. What reason do the players have for killing Superman? They can't get his laser eyes (except in very unusual circumstances), they can't get his invulnerability, and they won't get his anti-kryptonite suit. There is very little reason for superheroes to hurt each other, and as such, they generally don't. Compare to something like D&D, where you (generally) need money to accomplish goals and where party members tend to carry around large amounts of value with them. There is much more drive to kill another party member off, given the amount of reward the attacking player gets if successful.

I would also like to point out that we're saying "conflict" but what we really mean is "killing", or at least "hampering another character so that do not get to play to the fullest they otherwise would". Characters conflicting because of different values or goals isn't necessarily a bad thing, and isn't generally restricted by the system - the LG Paladin trying to stop the CN Thief from thieving isn't going to stop just because the Thief is no longer carrying sellable gear.

Of course, the interaction of the players has more to do with "conflict" than the type of system. Some people are perfectly fine with interaction in D&D, while others will plot and murder in Bunnies and Burrows.

Pentachoron
2011-03-18, 01:45 PM
But good players ARE affected by choice of system. Now, good players tend to have less disruptive pvp even when they DO pvp, but the amount they pvp, and the amount to which doing so distracts them from their plot will vary pretty immensely by system. I've played with the same guys in a *lot* of systems, and it's quite apparent.

I've had a similar amount of experience, but a very different actual experience. I've found across all the systems that I have played, any breakdown of party cohesion or pvp or anything of that sort, almost always originate and involve the same parties. Parties which I do not play with anymore, actually.



As far as 3.5, I agree that it is only really good for 3.5. I am also asthonished by how many people never play any game but. It's a sort of mono-gamism that doesn't exist in any other hobby. No one plays just one video game, or board game, or card game, but a lot of people seem to play just one RPG. Again, if it is fun for you and your group, than rock on and more power to you, but the game is, in my opinion, just not very good. It also teaches a lot of habits and assumptions about RPGs that I disagree with. Ah well. Different strokes, different folks in the end.

I think as far as the video game comment, you're looking at it in the wrong analogue. In 3.5 no one plays only one module, but a number of different campaigns. There are plenty of people that play only one genre of game, which I think is much more analogous to systems in RPGs.

I don't play whatever you'd call Warhammer (table top war-sim? way to spend all your disposable income?) but I know some people in that hobby that only play it, as well.

Yora
2011-03-18, 01:55 PM
I think that someone in the other thread had the right idea, at least in part. It's not less realism but finite resources, plus a reward for victory, which will encourage party conflict (by the game rules, at least).
(snip)
This is the first time I've heard the idea that people attack their party members to steal their stuff. :smalleek: It never occured to me that this could be a motivation. Most cases I've seen are about one player thinking it's funny to make the game less enjoyable for the other players and some less frequent cases in which the character had such a fundamental disagreement that they would resolve to violence to stop the other with going through with his intended action.
But when people start attacking party members for loot, I think there's no point left in trying to play a campaign.

As far as 3.5, I agree that it is only really good for 3.5. I am also asthonished by how many people never play any game but. It's a sort of mono-gamism that doesn't exist in any other hobby. No one plays just one video game, or board game, or card game, but a lot of people seem to play just one RPG. Again, if it is fun for you and your group, than rock on and more power to you, but the game is, in my opinion, just not very good. It also teaches a lot of habits and assumptions about RPGs that I disagree with. Ah well. Different strokes, different folks in the end.
The reason that I still play D&D is that I still have not found any other RPG that is better. The system has a great deal of faults, but by now I know about them and I can explain the game to anyone and guide them through character creation in about an hour and then we're ready to start playing. Almost all other systems I've found seem to have even more complex rules for character creation and much more complicated systems to resolve combat and magic. Shadowrun and Mouseguard are quite good either, but they don't help you if you want to play a regular fantasy game.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 02:08 PM
This is the first time I've heard the idea that people attack their party members to steal their stuff. :smalleek: It never occured to me that this could be a motivation.

Absolutely. I've known people to do this. Now, I should point out that most of the people that do this have little interest in playing as a team, and should just generally be avoided on principle for D&D styled games.

There are exceptions, though. Sometimes it's in character to blow a character away. I once made a character designed as a trap-monkey. Specifically, I designed him to set off every single trap everywhere and survive the consequences unscathed. He did so fantastically. Unfortunately, not all traps only target the individual who trigger them. Eventually, the party sold him into slavery. There was much rejoicing. I couldn't really be upset over it, since I can entirely see their point of view. They were a morally ambiguous party who disposed of what they saw as a liability, then went out and recruited someone more competent(my replacement character). And they did this in the means most profitable to them.

What separates them from the griefer style of pvpers is that it only happens when a legitimate reason comes up. Those who enjoy conflict for the annoyance of others will do so over and over, and any reasons are merely whatever is handy to excuse their behavior.

Britter
2011-03-18, 02:19 PM
I think as far as the video game comment, you're looking at it in the wrong analogue. In 3.5 no one plays only one module, but a number of different campaigns. There are plenty of people that play only one genre of game, which I think is much more analogous to systems in RPGs.

I don't play whatever you'd call Warhammer (table top war-sim? way to spend all your disposable income?) but I know some people in that hobby that only play it, as well.

I will concede that with high sunk-cost games, like Warhammer and it's relatives, it makes a degree of sense to stick to a single game system. Lot of effort and money went into that, on top of system mastery.

However, no matter how many campaigns of DnD you run, it is my opnion based on experience, and based on the fact that the engine is still DnD, that you are essentially playing the same game dressed up in different clothes. Even if you were to play just, say, 1st person shooters, you would still experience a much broader scope of games then the exclusive player of any given pnp-rpg system.

Once you start venturing outside of main-stream rpgs (White Wolf, DnD, Shadowrun, Gurps, etc.) you find a lot of games that are operating on very different engines, principles, and ideas, many of which vary widely from DnD, as well as from each other. Apocalypse World, for instance, is not very much like inSpectres and is nothing like 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars. They have different mechanics, different intentions in using those mechanics, and play differently from each other. In my opinion, a 3.5 Eberon game is nearly identical to a 3.5 Greyhawk game, Planescape game, or homebrew world of your choice.

Essentially I am saying that the people who think Halo (as an example. I am not making a qualitiative judgement about Halo or those who play it) is the best thing ever to come out of the 1st person shooter market really should check out some other games, because they might be surprised by the scope of what is out there and how it differs from what they thought were given, indisputable facts about the genre.

I readily admit that my interests and the things I like don't work for everyone, and that is a good thing, as otherwise the hobby as a whole would suffer from a lack of variety and creative input. However, I really think more people need to venture farther away from DnD, if only to appreciate the things they like about DnD more when they come back to it.

Again though, just my opinion for the most part. I know we will never reach a conclusion on this sort of thing, as it is largely based on what is fun for a particular group or individual.

erikun
2011-03-18, 02:21 PM
This is the first time I've heard the idea that people attack their party members to steal their stuff. :smalleek: It never occured to me that this could be a motivation. Most cases I've seen are about one player thinking it's funny to make the game less enjoyable for the other players and some less frequent cases in which the character had such a fundamental disagreement that they would resolve to violence to stop the other with going through with his intended action.
Well, the discussion was over how much the system being played affects intra-party conflict. If one player wants to annoy other players repeatedly, it doesn't much matter if we're playing Hackmaster or Chip 'n' Dale's Rescue Rangers the Role Playing Game - they'll still do it, with pretty much the same methods.

Rather, there is more reason to kill/steal from another party member if there is something to be gained from doing so. If playing D&D, then the party might just be inclined to kill the offensive character and divide the loot between them. If playing something like Mutants and Masterminds, though, there is a lot less incentive to kill them because they don't gain anything from it (and the problem player will just be back with another character anyways). And, of course, the shoe fits on the other foot - the problem player is more inclined to kill/steal for loot rather than just heckle in other games.

As I said, though, the personalities at the table matter far more than the system being used. D&D might encourage violence from bad players (and violence to bad characters) but personalities who would pleasantly enjoy GURPS would probably coexist peacefully in D&D as well.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 02:29 PM
Players are *always* more important than system. I don't think that makes the system unimportant, though.

The Big Dice
2011-03-18, 03:11 PM
Rather, there is more reason to kill/steal from another party member if there is something to be gained from doing so. If playing D&D, then the party might just be inclined to kill the offensive character and divide the loot between them.
I've seen a Cyberpunk group sponteneously switch from regular gaming group to Reservoir Dogs-style everyone shoots everyone else dead in a single sentence.

Admittedly, that sentence was "I've got some contacts at Arasaka, maybe I can get them off our backs."

As for the difference between game and system, it's fairly simple, really.

If you're playing L5R, 7th Sea, Mutants and Masterminds, Exalted, Vampire the Whatever It Is This Edition or any other game that comes with a setting, NPCs and genre expectations, you're playing a game.

If you're playing something like D&D, GURPS, or any of the many games that generally encourage world building and don't have a chapter in them that relates to any setting, you're using a system.

It's a subtle difference and it's one that many people don't recognise. But I see it.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 03:15 PM
Well, a game does require setting, sure. I don't always make the distinction in normal speech, but I agree with it. A game in Eberron isn't going to be quite the same as a game in Faerun.

Britter
2011-03-18, 03:30 PM
Well, a game does require setting, sure. I don't always make the distinction in normal speech, but I agree with it. A game in Eberron isn't going to be quite the same as a game in Faerun.

No. But it will still be recognizeably DnD. And therefore it will have many of the same underlying assumptions, the same class structure, the same mechanics. If you feel, as I do, that those underlying mechanics, assumptions, etc are flawed, than it makes no never-mind what setting you play in, DnD is the wrong tool for the job.

To go back to the OP, I am positing that some game systems are better suited to the OPs assertions about social comabt, player death, and splitting the party. DnD is, in my opinion, not such a system. Yes, good GMs and good players can make it, or any other system, do things it may not be suited for. But the fundamental design of the systems and mechanics that power your game is going to lead to the assumptions of play.

I still think the Big Dice nailed it with this statement, repeated for emphasis.



A well designed RPG often (not always) knows what the schticks of the game's genre are. Those assumptions that often aren't even spoken, but are an essential part of the game.


If you want the things the OP is indicating interest in within a game, play a game designed to support them. DnD, regardless of edition, ain't it really.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 03:47 PM
Well, it's a family of games within a system. They all share a lot, sure. D20 is like...D&D's extended family. Sure, there's the weird aunt or uncle, but there's still some family resemblance.

D&D in general does tend to be designed as a cooperative game. It doesn't *have* to be run that way, and is surprisingly resilient for other game types...but it doesn't work particularly well as a half cooperative/half pvp game. It's either all or nothing.

awa
2011-03-18, 04:10 PM
I was going to say dnd has a lot of widely diffrent settings with vastly diffrent premisis and then i realised that none of them were official in 3.0 (dark sun, planescape, spell jammer)

Skorj
2011-03-18, 04:11 PM
On Samurai Jill's original post: there really is something to be said for giving a strong in-character motivation for whatever amount of cooperation or conflict you're targeting. Some players will ruin anything, but having ejected those guys from the group, it really helps to have in-character and OOC guildlines for party conflict match up.


D&D in general does tend to be designed as a cooperative game. It doesn't *have* to be run that way, and is surprisingly resilient for other game types...but it doesn't work particularly well as a half cooperative/half pvp game. It's either all or nothing.

It's really very difficult to make a system that enables "Pvp some days, cooperation others" within a group. The only way I've seen that work is by making it clear that each player will play a series of characters, instead of advancing just one. Some systems have really cool mechanics for that, or sometimes it's just a fast-character-creation system and an understanding.

I'd also like to note that while D&D (across its many editions) is a poor system for dueling (in the sense that it requires a lot of DM skill to handle that well), it's quite a lot of fun to run team-vs-team. That was a staple of the gaming conventions I used to be involved with, and the best stories always seemed to come from the team-vs-team guys. (But then, I guess that also took quite a bit of skill to handle well.)


Well, it's a family of games within a system. They all share a lot, sure. D20 is like...D&D's extended family. Sure, there's the weird aunt or uncle, but there's still some family resemblance.

I've started working on a homebrew system with this in mind: it's a framework on which you can build quite diverse campaign settings by adding not just descriptions but setting-specific rules, and yet use the same software tools throughout. I think D&D 4E took an amazing step with the software tools they offer, and I hope that becomes the future of the industry. In the meantime it's a fun diversion to try to write my own.

Totally Guy
2011-03-18, 04:48 PM
Damn. My Mouse Guard character got totally owned. Evil scheme was stopped right in its tracks. It was pretty epic though.

I hope that seeing it has given everyone confidence that we can resolve our differences like that.

We can safely fall out with each other and play to win. That's liberating!

Lord.Sorasen
2011-03-18, 04:57 PM
As far as 3.5, I agree that it is only really good for 3.5. I am also asthonished by how many people never play any game but. It's a sort of mono-gamism that doesn't exist in any other hobby. No one plays just one video game, or board game, or card game, but a lot of people seem to play just one RPG. Again, if it is fun for you and your group, than rock on and more power to you, but the game is, in my opinion, just not very good. It also teaches a lot of habits and assumptions about RPGs that I disagree with. Ah well. Different strokes, different folks in the end.

That's hardly true, the thing about that unique in the mono-gameism thing. Lots of people only play one sport, for instance. But a bigger example is cards. You have this standard deck of playing cards, with like 4 of each value from 2-10, and then some royalty and this ace thing, and then those are all either red or black... And people basically play tons of games on this alone. Could the odds presented by these cards really be perfect for so many different games? I'm almost certain they're not. But if I made a deck of cards with different odds for say, Egyptian War, and labeled it as such, no one would ever buy that. Because they don't want to have cards everywhere. They'd much rather simply use one system and adapt it to what they want to do.

It sounds weird and not the same, but I feel it's at least the same mindset. D&D feels like it should be able to model any type of game. Even if it can't do it all well, it still technically can do it. So people, not wanting to own tons of different systems and learn a lot of different rules, pick one to really focus on, and it turns out to be D&D generally. It's not the best way, but it certainly seems to be a convenient way.

I feel like a lot of the people who play only D&D also are new... As I am. I haven't had time to look at all these new systems yet, I'm still learning about the current one. D&D probably picks up more beginners than any other system, I'd think.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 05:21 PM
I've started working on a homebrew system with this in mind: it's a framework on which you can build quite diverse campaign settings by adding not just descriptions but setting-specific rules, and yet use the same software tools throughout. I think D&D 4E took an amazing step with the software tools they offer, and I hope that becomes the future of the industry. In the meantime it's a fun diversion to try to write my own.

Oddly enough, I'm doing the same thing. It's rather wildly different from D&D, though. I don't think I could have ended up with a more different system if I'd specifically tried to.

I agree w respect to 4e. Oh, I hate the game, and wish it would die in a fire, but the character builder IS a massive step forward, and if they carry out their promise of online play, that would also be epic.

Britter
2011-03-18, 05:22 PM
That's hardly true, the thing about that unique in the mono-gameism thing. Lots of people only play one sport, for instance. But a bigger example is cards. You have this standard deck of playing cards, with like 4 of each value from 2-10, and then some royalty and this ace thing, and then those are all either red or black... And people basically play tons of games on this alone. Could the odds presented by these cards really be perfect for so many different games? I'm almost certain they're not. But if I made a deck of cards with different odds for say, Egyptian War, and labeled it as such, no one would ever buy that. Because they don't want to have cards everywhere. They'd much rather simply use one system and adapt it to what they want to do.

It sounds weird and not the same, but I feel it's at least the same mindset. D&D feels like it should be able to model any type of game. Even if it can't do it all well, it still technically can do it. So people, not wanting to own tons of different systems and learn a lot of different rules, pick one to really focus on, and it turns out to be D&D generally. It's not the best way, but it certainly seems to be a convenient way.

I feel like a lot of the people who play only D&D also are new... As I am. I haven't had time to look at all these new systems yet, I'm still learning about the current one. D&D probably picks up more beginners than any other system, I'd think.


I'm not trying to argue that my analogy is going to hold up to intense scrutiny, because it really won't (no analogy does). However, as a general rule, I have found it to be very true. Within the limited scope of RPGs, there is a definite trend towards a single game system being played to the exclusion of all others. In my experience that system is 3.5.

And I will also admit that the sunk-cost issue arises (I own about $2k) of Shadowrun books...it physically hurt to stop playing that system) when choosing to stay with a game system. Comfort and familiarity also applies.

My point is that in situations where people only play one game, they keep trying to illustrate that it can do everything. It is , in fact, one of the common arguments I hear on this forum for why folks like 3.5. They claim it can emulate anything. I reject that claim. I think that a trend towards playing a single game system makes it impossible for you to conceive of other ways to play, other systems, and other underlying assumptions.

That is part of the OPs point. Many people approach ALL gaming as following the 3.5 assumptions, and remain unaware of the vast scope of systems out there that work just fine under circumstances where 3.5 can fall apart, such as a split party, or pvp without gutting a party.

Unrest
2011-03-18, 05:25 PM
Now that I have been somehow lured into here by the GM's Seeking Ear spell, I will have to agree with Glug. The whole conflict was resolved quickly and with a short stab to the heart of the dispute, and well! - I know that watching Glug's character go on will be one interesting thing. His character's all about conflict, and it's certainly entertaining (though sometimes in this "all's well that ends well" way :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:).

@Dust: a nice read, and I agree that the more pure joy (awesome, relaxedness etc.) the players have, the less likely there is to be tension.

Kiero
2011-03-18, 05:41 PM
In fact, I'd go further than that- systems which eliminate the possibility of character-death during combat make combat dramatically meaningless. You essentially have to let the characters win in order for play to continue, which means there is no sense of tension or gravity to the proceedings.


Nah. I was with you up to this point. Character death is the least interesting "dramatic" possibility resulting from conflict. Combats that are actually about something can result in "loss" even when the characters "win" the fight. Even if its simple things like getting into a fight you could have avoided meant the characters weren't able to be somewhere important at the right time to protect someone who needed their help.

If someone is genuinely invested in what's going on, they don't need to fear for their characters' life for conflicts to have meaning.

Pisha
2011-03-18, 05:58 PM
I like the theory, it's well-thought-out and well-defended. In practice, though, I think it falls short - not because any of it is wrong, per se, but because I think it oversimplifies the causes of party conflict.

Taking our D&D game as an example: yes, as our characters got more powerful and more epic and less "realistic," my sneaky sneaky thief stopped cheating the party when it came to gold (well, mostly.) Partly because, yes, at higher levels it just doesn't mean as much, so there's no real reason to. Partly because as she became more awesome, she got her rush from being "cool" rather than sneaking around. Partly because the party has been awesome enough to earn her respect. All those things were a factor.

However, I wouldn't say they were the main factor. Instead, the primary factors include greater trust, loyalty, and friendship. She doesn't respect the wizard because he can stop time and destroy things with his brain; those things are cool, but that wouldn't stop her picking his pocket for a moment. She respects the wizard because he's a lovably grumpy Good Guy whose first concern in any conflict is getting the innocents out of the way, and because he's had her back in countless encounters.

Besides, party conflicts still exist, they just exist about other issues. Unrealistically awesome characters can still get upset if they think a party member has acted immorally or unethically, or get their noses out of joint if a party member starts keeping important secrets from them. That doesn't change.

I've also played in a gritty, realistic (well, as realistic as these things can be) Hunters game, where characters who honestly should have been at each other's throats were instead making excuses, in-character, for why they should work together.

In short, I think the biggest thing to decrease party conflict is to put together a group of players that don't want party conflict. If the players are committed to forming a long-term party for a long-term game, they'll figure it out. If they don't care about that, or don't care enough to put any effort towards it, then there's only so much the GM can do. There are some stopgaps - giving the party a goal important enough to encourage them to set aside their differences is a good one - but primarily, it's in the player's hands.

I must say, though, my experience with party conflict may be different from yours. I don't think I've ever played a tabletop game where actual pvp combat was considered a viable option. Generally, if relations between characters are that bad and can't be worked out, one or the other players will retire the character and create a new one. Our conflicts generally involve a lot of shouting, some solid rp, and generally some attempt at a compromise of some sort. Which is why I tend to agree with Darth Stabber; up to a certain level, some friction is good. The most fun I've had in our games is when we're getting in each other's faces shouting, shooting suspicious glares at each other across the table, or having furious whispered conversations in the kitchen (until 2 in the morning...) But because our party - and our players - have made the effort to create a baseline of trust and loyalty, we can have fun with it. I can afford to let the warmage suspect me, and she can afford to yell at me, because even though she could set me on fire and I could slit her throat in the night, we're not gonna. We're going to give each other the benefit of the doubt, at least long enough to attempt to work through the issue.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-18, 06:19 PM
Every one has stories about various games that did and didn't work out, and they're always going to try to extrapolate patterns about the systems/rules/settings, but what it comes down to is the players.
Since others have made similar remarks, I would just say that 'problem players' in a particular group may not neccesarily be deliberately looking for trouble or even playing in an inherently dysfunctional way- their basic 'outlook' might be perfectly suited for a particular style of play, but simply out of 'sync' with the preferences of the majority.

One of the major weak points of systems which claim to be 'able to do anything' is that players with wildly different preferences can take this seriously, and come to the table with completely different expectations about what will happen. Neither of these expectations may be inherently bad. The player who builds a Batman character in the expectation of following intricate chains of clues and fighting largely human opponents with (mostly) plausible gadgetry may well be bored to tears by anything the GM does to please the player who just wants Clobbering Time, and both could be bored to tears by the guy who wants a focus on Power and Responsibility.

The people are, in the final analysis, the most important factor- obviously. But system design also has great importance, for a few reasons. Firstly, you can use it to clearly communicate what kind of game this is, or, failing that, what kind of mechanical tweaks are needed to adapt it for specific purposes. You don't send 'false advertising' about your intentions. Secondly, the mechanics do have a psychological influence over player behaviour- players who might be 'on the fence' in terms of preferences might be tipped one way or another by the question of whether role-play is mechanically rewarded and how, for example.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-18, 06:25 PM
Nah. I was with you up to this point...
I've responded to that point here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10580912&postcount=63).

That is part of the OPs point. Many people approach ALL gaming as following the 3.5 assumptions, and remain unaware of the vast scope of systems out there that work just fine under circumstances where 3.5 can fall apart, such as a split party, or pvp without gutting a party.
Exactly.

randomhero00
2011-03-18, 07:21 PM
I disagree with the OP. I've been in very high powered games. And it doesn't matter much. The complainers will still complain.