PDA

View Full Version : My discomfort with Thinker player archetypes--villains have plots, not heroes



PhoenixPhyre
2020-10-31, 01:35 PM
I've had a long-standing discomfort with Thinker players. These are the ones who insist on planning everything in detail before doing anything--a Thinker "wins" when the actual execution of the plan is a done deal and they've won from the start. In more tactical situations, they tend to want to find "the perfect action" or the "silver bullet" spell that will solve combat with minimal risk and optimum use of resources. And that...irritates me. Irrationally so. It feels like play is bogging down and I find myself tempted to start throwing metaphorical bombs to get things going.

Part of it is a low boredom threshold. I get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That perfect plan? Boring because it's guaranteed to succeed.

But I think there's something deeper and more founded on tropes.
---------------
The classic hero/villain situation goes something like this:
1. Villain has complicated plot that involves maneuvering everyone into the right position with minimal direct involvement. The villain uses bunches of disposable mooks, magic/psychic manipulation, or just social scheming. But during this phase they're basically not at risk. Their victory is assured, like a rock rolling downhill.
2. And then the heroes stumble onto the plot somehow. And start mucking things up. While they may have plans and goals, the heroes are mostly about action. They investigate, start turning over rocks and squishing the bugs that crawl out.
3. Climactic showdown where the heroes bring the risk home to the villain and defeat them (in combat or otherwise).
4. The villain complains something like a Scooby Doo villain: And I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling [kids|heroes]!

That is, Villains Have Plots. Heroes act.

And more than that, villains put others at risk, while heroes put themselves at risk. Villains have mooks, heroes have friends. Villains manipulate from the shadows, heroes drag them and their devious plots into the light. Villains have subordinates and henchmen who act out of fear or greed, heroes make converts and treat them as equals. Villains induce betrayal out of self-interest or by blackmail or threats, heroes convert others by persuasion and love (lust, frequently).

Even the most direct villains tend to not be seen as bad guys as much unless they actively take horrific actions. The Noble Warrior type, who lives for battle and respects the heroes for facing him head on is much lower on the scale of evil than the Manipulator or Overlord type. Not good, but less bad. And almost always a lieutenant to a bigger bad. And frequently gets a conversion/redemption arc. Manipulators and plotters rarely do, in my experience.

So when players start doing the plotting and Xanatos Gambit routines or start relying on hiring (or summoning or binding) hordes of disposable mooks to act as meat walls, they don't feel like heroes. They feel like villains. Heroes may plan, but their plans are more on the tactical level and revolve around the members of the team, this band of equals, acting according to their strengths. The big guys charge in and hold attention while the mages roast people or debuff and the support types...well...support. They don't go in for mind games or domination or underhanded gambits--they're not necessarily nice or stupid, but they tend to cut through the walls of BS that the villains put up as defense.

And most importantly, they accept risk. Heroes take the risk onto themselves. That isn't to say that they are rash or foolhardy, and making the other poor sod die for his country is always more useful than valiantly dying for your own (to paraphrase General Patton). But they recognize that there is risk, and accept it on themselves instead of trying to find a way to minimize it and act at a distance. That's a villain's ploy--hide behind walls and mooks and plots. Heroes lead armies from the front, villains stand back and let others do the fighting and dying.
---------------
Is this entirely rational? No. But I think, for me, it explains a large chunk of why I'm not comfortable with the Thinker players. And why I don't like heist-style play. It feels...villainous. And I don't play villains. I struggle to go beyond the corner of (in D&D terms) LG/LN/NG. I can understand CG, but anything below that just makes me go ewww.

It also spills over to a dislike of mook-based play, whether that's by hiring tons of disposable commoners, summoning armies, raising the undead, or binding other creatures to your will. In the end, it's all about putting someone (or something) else into harm's way so that you can stand back and be comfortable and safe.

Yora
2020-10-31, 02:05 PM
You prefer action heroes. Many players don't. I think there's really not much more to it than that.

OldTrees1
2020-10-31, 02:25 PM
You stated that this is an irrational discomfort, so I am just going to list some considerations.


1) Teamwork. A team working together, practicing, and planning is a common neutral trope. It even shows up in media where the heroes fail until they realize they need to think instead of merely react.
2) Some heroes don't plan because they are invulnerable. Other heroes plan because the innocents are not invulnerable.
3) Being clever is a common heroic trait. Think about all the fables where the protagonist wins by being clever instead of being stronger.
4) The hero / villain dynamic does not need to be so cliche. Modern media has stopped sticking to that exact formula and RPGs were always ahead of the curve on flexing their flexibility. Maybe these heroes have goals and thus are actors in the world rather than only reacting.
5) Hero is a broader concept now. It is not just Superman, it is also Robin. It is not just Thor, it is also Spiderman. And that is sticking with just superheros which are a super small niche compared to the concept of hero.
6) The PCs are not necessarily Heroes. I don't mean they are not necessarily good (although it is true they are not necessarily good), but being a "hero" is not the only way to be a moral protagonist.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-31, 02:28 PM
Well, it is certainly a narrative trope. How much of that is from ingrained psychology versus how much is because action is more exciting “on screen” and how much easier it is to personify a few heroes as characters - who’s to say.

Though there are Ocean’s 11-esque heroes who are deep planners and clever protagonists, you are right that they inherently accept their own risk. And the planning happens offscreen or in a montage, so you always see them ACT.

Which kind of goes to your point for RPGs. Under many rule sets a thinker plan requires that you actually sit around the table and plan. For hours. And it may all go wrong anyhow. You can burn up a lot of time doing what seems like drudge work for little reward in fun or game results.

Really, I think it becomes:

How can players and GMs make thinker heroes in an rpg fun and time efficient?

After all, if we wanted to see who is good at marshaling resources, we would go fire up a Gary grigsby game.

icefractal
2020-10-31, 02:36 PM
It's funny, you've very accurately laid out why I don't like the classic hero/villain tropes that much. :smallwink:

The villains are always the ones being proactive, while the heroes' main talents are stopping things from happening and defending the status quo. And that's not necessarily a problem - a doctor trying to preserve the status quo of "the patient is relatively healthy and alive" from a proactive virus is a good thing, for example. But when the status quo is kind of crappy then it feels at best like being the lesser of two evils.

If anything, RPGs have a strong bias toward "proactive NPCs (usually villains), reactive PCs" because that's easier on the GM from a logistical perspective. I'd like to see more games where that expectation is reversed.


And it's not like there isn't plenty of fiction that fits that either - you just need to look at a wider set of genres. For example:

* Heist stuff, like Leverage. The heroes are the ones with a proactive plan, the villains mainly have raw power (both physical and social) on their side. That doesn't mean it's all risk free, because plans aren't perfect and when things go sideways the heroes need to improvise. But often their plan does work out, and that's fine - it's not like action heroes usually fail in the end either.

* Rebels against an oppressive regime. Again, the regime has raw power and the ability to drop the hammer if the heroes are ever cornered. The heroes are in plenty of danger, more than most action heroes probably, but they are also the ones making the plans and surprising their foes.

* Invention / achievement stories. Trying to be the first humans living on Mars, for example. The challenges in these are often from the universe itself rather than intentional opposition, but there can also be rivals, saboteurs, etc. In the latter case, this is direct reverse of the classical tropes -the villains heroes have an evil good plan, and the plucky heroes jerks are trying to throw a monkey-wrench in it. Just with a different outcome usually.

Yora
2020-10-31, 02:57 PM
It's funny, you've very accurately laid out why I don't like the classic hero/villain tropes that much. :smallwink:

I'm with you. I've been struggling for years with how to not make my campaign "Bad dudes want to do bad things. Go kill them before you do."

(Not running D&D helps a lot with that.)

Pex
2020-10-31, 03:04 PM
I feel the same way but not sure for the same exact reason. I don't say anything when I read a posting, but it always bothers me when someone casually mentions Animate Dead as a standard operating procedure a wizard can take. No, you can't just cast Animate Dead to solve your problem. You can't have a platoon of skeleton archers at your beck and call. Those are the evil necromancers the party is supposed to defeat. The village/town/city people won't casually let you walk around with your undead minions. There are consequences. What bugs me now is in one of my games a player took Animate Dead for his wizard and thought nothing of it. I know as a player but not yet in character. The wizard player is not That Guy, but we will have a problem when the truth comes out. Since I'm a cleric I'm thinking of just turning them, which I can disintegrate. I see trouble ahead. I should say something out of game, but I'm being cowardly and I know it. The other players and DM have already mentioned they're fine with it. Maybe I'll private message the DM. Anyway . . .

Similarly, no you cannot just cast Planar Binding and have some fiend do your dirty work. You have to convince the fiend to do it. You're doing Evil. The fiend will remember. There are consequences. Sure they're DM/Campaign dependent consequences, but it's not a casual casting as proof of spellcaster superiority to solve problems. A druid does not Conjure Animals to set off traps who needs a rogue.

Yora
2020-10-31, 03:24 PM
I think that particular thing is a result of most well established D&D spells coming from a time when D&D was all about outsmarting the opposition with every dirty trick available to feed the PCs' never ending hunger for loot.
These spells were created to be used for ruthless trickery.

Batcathat
2020-10-31, 04:59 PM
Personally, I prefer clever heroes who win by outplanning their opponents rather than just outfighting them or (even worse) by having a Very Special Destiny. Then again, I also prefer sneaky heroes with a flexible morality so the idea that their planning would make them more "villainous" isn't really a downside to me.

But even if you prefer heroes of the knights in shining armor variety, wouldn't having an actual solid plan have a greater chance of saving the most innocents rather than just running in, waving their swords around and hoping for the best?

Rynjin
2020-10-31, 05:16 PM
That is, Villains Have Plots. Heroes act.

This, by the by, is the source of most narrative issues with media that have clear hero/villain dichotomies.

This trope is what leads to things like the Flash getting punched in the face and knocked out by a normal human with no superpowers; the villain acted, the hero reacted (or failed to). This is why watching children's media like Power Rangers can get extremely frustrating; the heroes are always sitting around with their thumbs up their asses instead of taking the fight to the villain. The list of examples goes on.

This is a trope born largely of narrative laziness; it's a lot easier to write only a single side of the plot with agency.

Batcathat
2020-10-31, 05:20 PM
This is a trope born largely of narrative laziness; it's a lot easier to write only a single side of the plot with agency.

While I do agree that's at least part of it, I think there's also an element of writers wanting to preserve the status quo of their world. The villains can try to change things all they want but since they're the bad guys, they will (usually) fail. If the heroes actually tried to change things they might actually pull it off.

Rynjin
2020-10-31, 05:23 PM
While I do agree that's at least part of it, I think there's also an element of writers wanting to preserve the status quo of their world. The villains can try to change things all they want but since they're the bad guys, they will (usually) fail. If the heroes actually tried to change things they might actually pull it off.

We're kind of saying the same thing; narrative agency is what gives your characters the ability to actually affect the world, and change the status quo. Keeping that status quo hard set requires removing agency from BOTH sides (which, now I think of it, may be MORE the problem with shows like Power Rangers, as fun as they can be sometimes).

noob
2020-10-31, 05:36 PM
At some point I had the party in was in decide "how do we fix the problems with this very powerful and corrupt government" and it mostly involved finding interesting attack plans to do stuff like rescuing prisoners(that were dead and had their souls trapped) or stealing documents and so on but there was not a predetermined order in which to do things and we had choice in how we approached the skirmishes.
At some point we even did think "we could let the government waste tons of money trying to make their stuff more and more secure while we go somewhere else to adventure"
and "we could bait them to attack massively an area that is not our base and trap a significant portion of their army"

Heroes can plot just fine although as you could see the plots were rather simplistic like orbital bombardment while distracting them with an illusory army and flying whales.

Clistenes
2020-10-31, 05:52 PM
I think the whole "villains make plans, heroes use raw power" is more a modern comic-book hero thing rather and an universal hero thing... Many traditional heroes from literature, folk tales and myth make plans and trickery: Ulysses, Robin Hood, El Zorro, Sun Wukong, Maui, the Puss in Boots...etc. Even the Fantastic Four used a lot of trickery in their first adventures, like swapping places with a shapeshifted skrull to enter their spacecraft, usin Sci Fi special effects to convince alien invaders that Earth was a powerful spacefaring civilization, tricking Dr. Doom into drinking his own mind-controlling drug...etc.

Yes, there were heroes who used raw power against all foes and obstacles too, like Hercules, Beowulf and Lancelot, but cunning ones were popular too.

As a matter of fact, the first sci-fi and fantasy comic-book heroes (as opposed to those from historical settings) tended to be normal humans who defeated powerful monsters and supermen using cunning and trickery.

The origin of the current model of "villains make plans, heroes use brawn" can probably be tracked to 1933, when Jerry Siegel decided to change his originally villainous Superman into a hero, when he realized that comics would sell better if the character with superpowers and special traits were the hero, rather than a monster of the week to be defeated by a generic trickster hero...


Part of it is a low boredom threshold. I get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That perfect plan? Boring because it's guaranteed to succeed.

Who says the plan is guaranteed to succeed? Carefully laid plans fail all the time in real life, and in a D&D game you have a DM trying to make things as interesting as possible.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-10-31, 06:04 PM
I think some are missing the distinction (maybe a subtle one) between planning and plotting. Heroes make plans. They don't plot. They plan for the action they themselves will take, not plot how to use others as tools or playing pieces to get their way. Because heroes don't think of others as objects to be manipulated, as means, but as ends unto themselves.


While I do agree that's at least part of it, I think there's also an element of writers wanting to preserve the status quo of their world. The villains can try to change things all they want but since they're the bad guys, they will (usually) fail. If the heroes actually tried to change things they might actually pull it off.

Good guys can change things. And they often do. It's just they have either a) more modest goals than world domination or b) goals that are orthogonal to big flashy stuff. IMX, heroes have goals and plans that are basically downtime things. Have a family, work towards the good. Own a tavern.

Evil tends to go for the sweeping changes to society--Good knows that that's a deception all in its own. Good comes from the individual. Good men have more often fallen to evil by trying to change everything else (ie For the Greater Good) than by direct seduction by evil. So Good focuses on those close at hand. At least how I see it.

Also, since the world in films is not generally a crapsack (thankfully, grimdark is not interesting to me at all), heroes are generally fighting to preserve the light from the forces of darkness, rather than trying to bring the light. The world is generally good, so there's more scope for evil to have large-scale plots. That's the nature of a bounded spectrum. Just like it's easier to drop your grade if it's high and raise it if it's low than vice versa.


Personally, I prefer clever heroes who win by outplanning their opponents rather than just outfighting them or (even worse) by having a Very Special Destiny. Then again, I also prefer sneaky heroes with a flexible morality so the idea that their planning would make them more "villainous" isn't really a downside to me.

But even if you prefer heroes of the knights in shining armor variety, wouldn't having an actual solid plan have a greater chance of saving the most innocents rather than just running in, waving their swords around and hoping for the best?

I think I may have miscommunicated. Heroes can plan and don't have to just charge in, but their plans revolve around them taking action. Not tricking others into doing it for them while they stand back and watch. Because heroes accept the risks and don't push them off onto others. And most of the time, the Thinkers' I've played with have been the latter. They'll delay taking action because they're not ready yet, even though innocents are suffering and dying. They want one master-stroke to finish off the enemy all at once, instead of getting in there and saving people.

Consider the first Captain America film. Cap decides to take action, despite it being basically suicide and being ordered not to by the "planners". He knew the innocents and his friend couldn't wait for them to get a perfect plan together.

There's a difference between being smart and being cowardly. And too often, Thinkers end up being the second. What else do you call those who are willing to see anyone else hurt but themselves? Heroes stand in the way of evil, whether with swords and guns or with clever words and social grace. They don't hide behind others. They don't treat others as disposable tools.


I feel the same way but not sure for the same exact reason. I don't say anything when I read a posting, but it always bothers me when someone casually mentions Animate Dead as a standard operating procedure a wizard can take. No, you can't just cast Animate Dead to solve your problem. You can't have a platoon of skeleton archers at your beck and call. Those are the evil necromancers the party is supposed to defeat. The village/town/city people won't casually let you walk around with your undead minions. There are consequences. What bugs me now is in one of my games a player took Animate Dead for his wizard and thought nothing of it. I know as a player but not yet in character. The wizard player is not That Guy, but we will have a problem when the truth comes out. Since I'm a cleric I'm thinking of just turning them, which I can disintegrate. I see trouble ahead. I should say something out of game, but I'm being cowardly and I know it. The other players and DM have already mentioned they're fine with it. Maybe I'll private message the DM. Anyway . . .

Similarly, no you cannot just cast Planar Binding and have some fiend do your dirty work. You have to convince the fiend to do it. You're doing Evil. The fiend will remember. There are consequences. Sure they're DM/Campaign dependent consequences, but it's not a casual casting as proof of spellcaster superiority to solve problems. A druid does not Conjure Animals to set off traps who needs a rogue.

Very much agreed. Same with the "well, we'll just hire an army of disposable mooks. No one cares if they all die, right?" Set aside that most settings don't have armies of people willing to be hired who possesses enough skill and training to be useful, those people have families. The idea of "disposable people" is a fundamentally evil one. Because it's all about protecting yourself at a cost to others.

noob
2020-10-31, 06:09 PM
I think some are missing the distinction (maybe a subtle one) between planning and plotting. Heroes make plans. They don't plot. They plan for the action they themselves will take, not plot how to use others as tools or playing pieces to get their way. Because heroes don't think of others as objects to be manipulated, as means, but as ends unto themselves.



Good guys can change things. And they often do. It's just they have either a) more modest goals than world domination or b) goals that are orthogonal to big flashy stuff. IMX, heroes have goals and plans that are basically downtime things. Have a family, work towards the good. Own a tavern.

Evil tends to go for the sweeping changes to society--Good knows that that's a deception all in its own. Good comes from the individual. Good men have more often fallen to evil by trying to change everything else (ie For the Greater Good) than by direct seduction by evil. So Good focuses on those close at hand. At least how I see it.

Also, since the world in films is not generally a crapsack (thankfully, grimdark is not interesting to me at all), heroes are generally fighting to preserve the light from the forces of darkness, rather than trying to bring the light. The world is generally good, so there's more scope for evil to have large-scale plots. That's the nature of a bounded spectrum. Just like it's easier to drop your grade if it's high and raise it if it's low than vice versa.



I think I may have miscommunicated. Heroes can plan and don't have to just charge in, but their plans revolve around them taking action. Not tricking others into doing it for them while they stand back and watch. Because heroes accept the risks and don't push them off onto others. And most of the time, the Thinkers' I've played with have been the latter. They'll delay taking action because they're not ready yet, even though innocents are suffering and dying. They want one master-stroke to finish off the enemy all at once, instead of getting in there and saving people.

Consider the first Captain America film. Cap decides to take action, despite it being basically suicide and being ordered not to by the "planners". He knew the innocents and his friend couldn't wait for them to get a perfect plan together.

There's a difference between being smart and being cowardly. And too often, Thinkers end up being the second. What else do you call those who are willing to see anyone else hurt but themselves? Heroes stand in the way of evil, whether with swords and guns or with clever words and social grace. They don't hide behind others. They don't treat others as disposable tools.



Very much agreed. Same with the "well, we'll just hire an army of disposable mooks. No one cares if they all die, right?" Set aside that most settings don't have armies of people willing to be hired who possesses enough skill and training to be useful, those people have families. The idea of "disposable people" is a fundamentally evil one. Because it's all about protecting yourself at a cost to others.

To be honest we did see prisoners as resources to get information/help for later.
The fact it was heroic was an optional bonus.
Most of the attack plans included "for doing this we are helped if we do that before but they would also add more guards to tactical points so maybe we should attack two tactical objectives in the same day" and so on.
Heck we even did consider the possibility of just fighting an attrition war over the long term and that the other side would just run out of diamonds one day (and we would not because we would have the advantage of surprise because the opponents are somewhere specific).
So we saw the people on both sides as resources(but we also loved the people on both sides except the evil guys at the top which made us have an hard time deciding if an attrition war was right: we could have won at the cost of people but it was an option)

We were caring for everyone (except the evil guys at the top) and seeing everyone as resources (ours and the one of the opponent) at the same time which made the whole thing harder and we were actually trying to do a change that would not have brought to an older status quo(getting rid of the evil leaders and probably putting in place of them simulacrums that obeys us and not tell our former allies so that they never realise what happened and then have the simulacrums stop the evil policies and then we would have had a kingdom for ourselves and no clue what to do other than probably taking over the world next).
Because yes: most of our allies were bad people like serial killers and people who thinks a rule of the casters should be imposed (unlike the poor people in front of us we were fighting)

So plotting can happen spontaneously: just set up objectives way too big for the players to tackle just the way they do a dungeon crawl and put multiple powers in place with vastly different amounts of influence.

Also add ways to allow the heroes to sympathize and/or ally with villainous people that have villainous objectives and it will naturally make them plan to betray those villainous people in case they get close to their plans.

Clistenes
2020-10-31, 06:28 PM
I think some are missing the distinction (maybe a subtle one) between planning and plotting. Heroes make plans. They don't plot. They plan for the action they themselves will take, not plot how to use others as tools or playing pieces to get their way. Because heroes don't think of others as objects to be manipulated, as means, but as ends unto themselves.

How many people really reach that level of chess-mastery? And anyways, overly complex plans fall apart easily... relying on other people acting as you predict is dangerous; if the DM allows the players' plan to run seamlessly, well, that's their problem... there are so many ways a plan with 345 detailed steps can go wrong!

noob
2020-10-31, 06:30 PM
How many people really reach that level of chess-mastery? And anyways, overly complex plans fall apart easily... relying on other people acting as you predict is dangerous; if the DM allows the players' plan to run seamlessly, well, that's their problem... there are so many ways a plan with 345 detailed steps can go wrong!

In fact the only reason why villains does not have their plots fail in the absence of the do gooders is that the gm controls both the pawns and the villain but if the pawns had autonomy the gm would hardly ever get the pawns to do what the villain needs.

denthor
2020-10-31, 06:40 PM
First off lawful types plan. Lawful neutral/evil types more then others.

Start changing alignments.

Play with alignments.

If that doesn't work. Then find a way to create conflict. Send a party against them they can not plan if there is not a safe place to plan. Have a member or two missing in action. Make deals have them take game down time. Have the bad plans move forward. Make them react.

OldTrees1
2020-10-31, 06:46 PM
I think some are missing the distinction (maybe a subtle one) between planning and plotting. Heroes make plans. They don't plot. They plan for the action they themselves will take, not plot how to use others as tools or playing pieces to get their way. Because heroes don't think of others as objects to be manipulated, as means, but as ends unto themselves.

I am confused. That in not the normal distinction so I am using your post as the sole source to parse this distinction, but it seems the difference between Plans and Plots is independent of the player being a Thinker archetype.

Have you considered a rebellion? The leaders of the rebellion make plans not just for their own action, but also for the action their followers will take. If heroes can't do this, then they have to have a absolutely flat hierarchy. No leadership, just individuals. Unless you are allowing the rebellion to count as 1 group despite the leadership hierarchy?

However that other part has more meat to it. You are referencing Kant's belief that "beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else" which has a lot to unpack. However it does not mean you can't predict how others will react, not plan accordingly. It means don't treat beings as merely objects, instead recognize they too are actors with their own ends.


Take for a moment me playing a game of MtG Commander with 2 of my friends. I respect my friends as ends unto themselves. When we play we do so for everyone's enjoyment. However that does not mean I can't make plans that include actions my "opponents" do. I can play a card that gives them a choice, or that modifies a choice they will get, in order to have their reaction (as best I can predict it) contribute to my plan. The Thinker archetype can do the same thing except they might not all be friends. The Heroes can respect the Villian, the Villians Minions, the civilians, and the Heroes' allies as ends unto themselves while also making plans that take into account their reactions to the actions of the Heroes.


So Thinker archetypes can stick to "plans" instead of "plots" based on your distinction. If the PCs descends into "plots" by starting to disregard the moral personhood of the other people involved, then it sounds like they are a non heroic PC. But, not all PCs are heroes.


But as I said at the start of my previous post and now again at the end of this one. I recognize that you are describing how you feel. Emotions are not governed by logic. It is okay to feel differently than the conclusions I draw.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-10-31, 07:24 PM
I am confused. That in not the normal distinction so I am using your post as the sole source to parse this distinction, but it seems the difference between Plans and Plots is independent of the player being a Thinker archetype.

Have you considered a rebellion? The leaders of the rebellion make plans not just for their own action, but also for the action their followers will take. If heroes can't do this, then they have to have a absolutely flat hierarchy. No leadership, just individuals. Unless you are allowing the rebellion to count as 1 group despite the leadership hierarchy?

However that other part has more meat to it. You are referencing Kant's belief that "beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else" which has a lot to unpack. However it does not mean you can't predict how others will react, not plan accordingly. It means don't treat beings as merely objects, instead recognize they too are actors with their own ends.


Take for a moment me playing a game of MtG Commander with 2 of my friends. I respect my friends as ends unto themselves. When we play we do so for everyone's enjoyment. However that does not mean I can't make plans that include actions my "opponents" do. I can play a card that gives them a choice, or that modifies a choice they will get, in order to have their reaction (as best I can predict it) contribute to my plan. The Thinker archetype can do the same thing except they might not all be friends. The Heroes can respect the Villian, the Villians Minions, the civilians, and the Heroes' allies as ends unto themselves while also making plans that take into account their reactions to the actions of the Heroes.


So Thinker archetypes can stick to "plans" instead of "plots" based on your distinction. If the PCs descends into "plots" by starting to disregard the moral personhood of the other people involved, then it sounds like they are a non heroic PC. But, not all PCs are heroes.


But as I said at the start of my previous post and now again at the end of this one. I recognize that you are describing how you feel. Emotions are not governed by logic. It is okay to feel differently than the conclusions I draw.

It's less that they can't do it as that they don't (often) do it. At least in my experience. It's a much harder row to hoe than taking action. And I much prefer if PCs are, if not heroes, at least hero-adjacent. Black-on-black morality, grimdark, villain heroes--these are things I'd rather not have in my games. Doesn't have to be clear-cut black and white, but there should be a good path and that path shouldn't be a crappy one. Evil and smart are not synonyms, nor are good and dumb.

And yes, a hero can include their allies in the plans. As long as their allies are there willingly and not being treated as disposable mooks whose only value is in throwing their lives away stopping some (metaphorical) bullets. A hero can make and execute a plan that he knows will lead to the loss of lives, but will regret it and try to minimize that cost to other people. And mourn the fallen. A really good hero might even try to value the lives of the other side, at least where they're just dupes of the real villain. I don't necessarily expect that in a game, but that's the goal.

I don't have anything against plans (other than my own low boredom threshold not liking spending whole sessions on it, especially when it's straining at gnats on details we don't even know and can't know) or making those plans based on beliefs about the other side's actions. I do find that those who most aggressively push the planning angle tend to have the least concern for other (fictional) people--the characters are just chess pieces. And NPCs are even less than chess pieces. And I don't like that.

To me, plan is neutral but plot has nefarious overtones. You plot to overthrow the true king, or you plot to manipulate events so that you're the power behind the throne. You plan what you're going to wear while doing so. Plot and <evil laugh> go together. And in my experience, Thinkers tend to find it easy to slip into plotting mode. And then get really frustrated when their plans aren't treated as gospel--how dare the DM actually say that it doesn't work! I put so much time and effort into this plan! How dare the lousy dice have a roll (spelling intentional) in this!

But more so, the games I like to play (even within a single game system) are ones where the PCs find themselves in a situation not of their own making and have to do something about it (even if that's just survive). So their plans are much more short-range. And their actions provoke reactions, which mess up any long-range plans, etc. That interplay of action/reaction (from both sides) is what makes things interesting. If you can just plan up front and "win" the scenario/arc/whatever based on your planning alone, then that's boring. Heist games might be tolerable if they're treated like heist movies, where you only see the planning in retrospect/flashbacks.

It's the same with games where you can "win" at character creation/faction selection/deck-building time. If that's true, there's really no point in actually playing, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion (barring critical mistakes). And I want discovery, the unexpected and unknown. I want to see the situation develop in real time, not watch some inevitable conclusion slowly grind its way out.

OldTrees1
2020-11-01, 12:29 AM
It's less that they can't do it as that they don't (often) do it. At least in my experience. It's a much harder row to hoe than taking action. And I much prefer if PCs are, if not heroes, at least hero-adjacent. Black-on-black morality, grimdark, villain heroes--these are things I'd rather not have in my games. Doesn't have to be clear-cut black and white, but there should be a good path and that path shouldn't be a crappy one. Evil and smart are not synonyms, nor are good and dumb.

And yes, a hero can include their allies in the plans. As long as their allies are there willingly and not being treated as disposable mooks whose only value is in throwing their lives away stopping some (metaphorical) bullets. A hero can make and execute a plan that he knows will lead to the loss of lives, but will regret it and try to minimize that cost to other people. And mourn the fallen. A really good hero might even try to value the lives of the other side, at least where they're just dupes of the real villain. I don't necessarily expect that in a game, but that's the goal.

It is true that tactically & strategically smart heroes are rarer in media. However as you noted, smart is not exclusive to evil. It does not break Kantian ethics for a tactician hero to include predicted enemy moves as part of their plan or to build off of a provoked error. This is not "plotting" by your definition.

So just like Good is not synonymous with Dumb, Thinker is not synonymous with Plotting (using your definition).


I don't have anything against plans (other than my own low boredom threshold not liking spending whole sessions on it, especially when it's straining at gnats on details we don't even know and can't know) or making those plans based on beliefs about the other side's actions. I do find that those who most aggressively push the planning angle tend to have the least concern for other (fictional) people--the characters are just chess pieces. And NPCs are even less than chess pieces. And I don't like that.

To me, plan is neutral but plot has nefarious overtones. You plot to overthrow the true king, or you plot to manipulate events so that you're the power behind the throne. You plan what you're going to wear while doing so. Plot and <evil laugh> go together. And in my experience, Thinkers tend to find it easy to slip into plotting mode. And then get really frustrated when their plans aren't treated as gospel--how dare the DM actually say that it doesn't work! I put so much time and effort into this plan! How dare the lousy dice have a roll (spelling intentional) in this!

I think this speaks more to the players you have played with than it does to the Thinker archetype in general. Thinkers Plan and you object to Heroes Plotting.*

Although I think this is partially caused by you wanting the PCs to be heroes and then you are applying a generalized version of your own moral system as the standard to judge them by. Do the other players hold a similar desire? Do the other players hold a similar standard? It is quite easy for a PC to fail a high standard imposed by a different player. In this case it is showing up in the Plans, but it sounds like an intersection of different players with different standards and different visions.

* To which my brain immediately thinks:
Not all Thinkers Plot.
Not all Thinkers have Hero PCs
Not all Hero PCs are Thinkers



But more so, the games I like to play (even within a single game system) are ones where the PCs find themselves in a situation not of their own making and have to do something about it (even if that's just survive). So their plans are much more short-range. And their actions provoke reactions, which mess up any long-range plans, etc. That interplay of action/reaction (from both sides) is what makes things interesting. If you can just plan up front and "win" the scenario/arc/whatever based on your planning alone, then that's boring. Heist games might be tolerable if they're treated like heist movies, where you only see the planning in retrospect/flashbacks.

It's the same with games where you can "win" at character creation/faction selection/deck-building time. If that's true, there's really no point in actually playing, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion (barring critical mistakes). And I want discovery, the unexpected and unknown. I want to see the situation develop in real time, not watch some inevitable conclusion slowly grind its way out.

Yeah different styles of play can be boring for different people.

1) Equally intelligent forces clash
If you can just plan up front and "win" the scenario/arc/whatever based on your planning alone, then the scenario/arc/whatever was played out at +1 meta level. If the PCs can plan a scenario out to a "win" then the enemy can plan a scenario out to a "win". Which "win"s will the PCs do and which will the villains do? You are now back to that action/reaction style you like, except the battlemap is different with different rules.

2) Intellect fights brawn
If you can just plan up front and "win" the scenario/arc/whatever based on your planning alone, BUT since the other side is overwhelming, you have to pick which battles to win and you lose the rest. This turns it back to PCs reacting to the Villians, except the battlemap is different with different rules.

Quertus
2020-11-01, 08:39 AM
Reading this is quite bizarre.

The "thinker" - the underdog - is kinda the classic hero archetype, IME.

There's this strange conflation of "thinker" and "plotter", leading to the OP even saying in the title that they dislike "Thinker player", presumably conflating player and character as well.

Best guess is that the OP is a (gaming) action junkie, leading them to subconsciously attempt to vilify anything that doesn't match their preferred playstyle (in this case, vilifying "thinking" in favor of "action").

Heroes can think. Heroes can plan. In fact, "Heroes" who don't are generally "murderhobos", using "might makes right" justification, and not really thinking about the moral implications of their actions.

-----

Disliking antiheroes is... a valid if limiting taste.

Disliking "plotting", defined (oddly, but I don't have a better word) as "the willingness to sacrifice others for their own sake" is... a valid if limiting taste.

Disliking CaW because you lack the ability to appreciate the planning phase, and/or are jonesing for the next hit of action, and/or feel that the fight is the "real" game & feel cheated out of getting to play when that portion is trivialized... is a valid if limiting taste.

Perceiving Heroes as reactionary... is a perception, not a preference, but, if it is a preference... well, you can probably guess what I'll say about that.

Conflating your tastes with all these various other components, and vilifying them in the process, makes communication with your players about the type of game you want much more difficult - and leads to some strong bias flavoring any related conversations.

-----

There's my thoughts on how this issue seems to map out. I certainly hope that you can work through it, and learn both to communicate your preferences without bias, and to enjoy... as much as the spectrum of gaming as you are psychologically capable of enjoying.

Saint-Just
2020-11-01, 09:13 AM
I really cannot understand what is your position, OP. In the first post it seems like you are using words "plot" and "plan" interchangeably. Later you do specify the distinction... except that it seems to boil down to "plots are villainous plans". Of course many people wouldn't want the protagonists/PCs to be villainous, or even villain-adjacent. But as far as examples you give - would a plot to overthrow a cruel tyrannical king suddenly stop being a plot because it was done by good people with good intentions? Or is it also something you don't want to see in your games, because heroes should always challenge villains openly? It may be true for your group that whatever Evil you are battling can be always defeated openly so there is no need for underhanded tactics, but it's not true for substantial number of other groups - or even for newcomers who go by "like reality, unless noted otherwise".

Next I would like to note that in D&D PCs are reasonably likely to be mostly safe when they lead from the front - because their followers are usually have fewer levels, worse equipment etc. it is not universally true for other systems - magic-user may be a glass cannon who can take less punishment than a newly-minted fighter, diplomancer may have neither damage nor defenses, offering only buffs and utility magic/songs/mumbo-jumbo. Even in D&D it may be stupid to lead from the front if enemy uses ninja assassins or a Black Squadron or whoever who can take out a single target much easier than they can affect outcome of large-scale battle.

Next I would like to bring to your attention OoTS 1216. I do not think that if players in your group has done something like that you would find it distasteful, however it checks most of your boxes - it was an example of mind games, it used either Xykon's hastiness or more general failings of a sapient mind as means to the end; yes it was extremely short-term, yet it was example of outsmarting your opponent instead of openly accepting battle when challenged.

Finally I would like to circle back to your examples - in the first post you have written "hiding behind walls" as an example of un-heroic behaviour. I think that heroes who never use a fortified position to their advantage, who never defend (or even never hide) are examples of what TVtropes call Honor before Reason. Again maybe in your games that is always rewarded, but to know that characters should know that they are heroes in the story, not merely people in the world. Most settings are not set to reward one particular idea of "honor" in-universe, so you definitely need either self-aware characters (and most games don't do this, except maybe rarely for the comic relief) or at least strong group contract not to play plotters.

Cluedrew
2020-11-01, 09:29 AM
I think there are several problems tied up in this and I am going to go over them in turn:

On Villains=Brains & Heroes=Brawn: A bias that goes back a long way. I read a thing that there seems to be a cultural bias that outsmarting someone is cheating while overpowering them is not. Exceptions do exist but that seems to be the standard (Ulysses was a thinker but I think he was the only one of the major Greek heroes). Tear it down. It may feel weird but I'm going to argue it shouldn't so just run with it until it stops feeling weird. You could do the same thing for the status quo.

On Indecision: It's a problem in games and it happens. I had a real run in with this last week and by the time we knocked ourselves out of it something like an hour had past. Really I think this is an out-of-game problem. There is a point at which your plans are not going to get any better. There is no perfect solution here so I will just do one tip: Set expectations about how much planning is expected. In a Shadowrun game planning everything is kind of the expectation, if you not running that type game. And maybe call attention if the planning is starting to drag out (bonus tip).

On Moral Thinking: Here is the real hero/villain divide and I don't think it has to do with plot vs plan - which actually just mean the same thing and I think trying to separate this by connotations is unclear. Its just are the plans heroic or not? Who is being put at risk and who is being sacrificed? What lines are being crossed (the necromancy example kind of depends on the setting, it could be evil, disrespectful or just gross)? And I don't think this actually has a lot to do with the planning vs. action line but just: Are you treating people like they are people or like playing pieces. The fact that out-of-character the people are playing pieces can make that slip easier but that doesn't matter in character.

noob
2020-11-01, 09:37 AM
Please note that if you are playing that warhammer 40k rpg where you are supposed to be inquisitor or equivalent people most fights against chaos are based on outsmarting it and cooperation because chaos is a gigantic bruteforce thing that is poor at cooperating or at tactics. (hence why they have an endless army of super powerful individuals but barely ever gets anything done).
About brawn being more heroic than brains it is accentuated by sword nobility from many countries that did reach nobility through their brawns which makes them insist that brawn is noble, heroic and so on because who would not present themselves favourably?
This is also why poison is also considered unheroic: those same nobles did not want to be poisoned and assumed that in a fight they would win so they vilified poison.(and they could not vilify brute force fights because it is how they got here)

Jason
2020-11-01, 10:05 AM
I would say that if your "heroes" keep hiring or dominating mooks to do all their fighting for them then show them the consequences. Families that are missing their dad or mom because the players sent them into a deathtrap. Adventurers who grew up without a brother because the players had him show them how the monsters worked. Feudal leaders who are upset that all the mercenaries in an area have already been hired. Legal liability for treating people like property. A bad reputation for treating their employees like they are disposable. "Oh, you're the group that did that job. Didn't you have 75% casualties? My price just went way up."
Show them why it's not heroic to send in their own personal army to take all the damage while they plot from the sidelines.

And make it boring. Instead of rolling out battlees with all NPCs just say "the battle's over. You won. Time to pay the survivors." Make their mooks make stupid mistakes the players wouldn't have made if they had been there.

Divide the XP evenly among all the hirelings and the players, or only give them a small plotting award, since their minions did all the real work. That should get their attention.

Vahnavoi
2020-11-01, 10:10 AM
I think that particular thing is a result of most well established D&D spells coming from a time when D&D was all about outsmarting the opposition with every dirty trick available to feed the PCs' never ending hunger for loot.
These spells were created to be used for ruthless trickery.
It's also worth noting that at "that time", practically 1st Edition AD&D, playing the villain, being the villain, was acceptable role for a player character. Being an Evil assassin, out to poison and murder other for profit, was a basic character option.

I suspect a lot of PhoenixPhyre's discomfort comes from playing during zeitgeist codified by 2nd edition AD&D: that the player characters have to be Good and Heroic and playing Evil is exceptional and special.

This said... despite having no problems with players playing villains, I, too, am perpetually annoyed by overthinking players! To such degree that I will time player decision-making and prod them to a make a move if I'm a GM.

It's not like I don't understand the appeal. I'm a "thinker" personality myself. But there's no point to exhaustive preplay, because if you've already considered every possible way a thing could go, then the actual play, the actual moment of action, is just a chore. It's just going through the motions. I've heard high-level chess players make similar remarks about early game of chess: the beginning portion of the game is so well analyzed that it's become a matter of rote memorization for them, there's no real agency and no real choice until the midgame.

Saint-Just
2020-11-01, 10:26 AM
Please note that if you are playing that warhammer 40k rpg where you are supposed to be inquisitor or equivalent people most fights against chaos are based on outsmarting it and cooperation because chaos is a gigantic bruteforce thing that is poor at cooperating or at tactics. (hence why they have an endless army of super powerful individuals but barely ever gets anything done).
About brawn being more heroic than brains it is accentuated by sword nobility from many countries that did reach nobility through their brawns which makes them insist that brawn is noble, heroic and so on because who would not present themselves favourably?
This is also why poison is also considered unheroic: those same nobles did not want to be poisoned and assumed that in a fight they would win so they vilified poison.(and they could not vilify brute force fights because it is how they got here)

While both examples are not untrue, they are both weak.

Warhammer (40k even more than Fantasy) definitely thrives on heroic villains and antiheroes, when it's not a bleak horror, so while I agree that it's the most prominent style of gameplay, it's exactly what PhoenixPhyre doesn't like and probably wouldn't run or play. And yes, brains<>anti-hero, but Warhammer probably wouldn't make the cut for him even without scheming.

About nobility - rising from the commoners may have been achieved through sheer battle prowess, but if noble had something besides a title then his descendants would be likely trained in a number of things besides personal combat: tactical leadership, moral leadership, managing of estates, being a courtier etc, and at least significant fraction would not put battle prowess first and foremost. Yes it's a game they knew how to play, but it was not first and foremost - society focused solely on fighting would probably have significantly fewer restrictions on who may challenge whom - like some of the Viking settlements.

And poison was loathed almost universally, or at least as far as I know. For example it was widely conflated with evil magic or spiritual pollution, and while I may find possible that even the lowest serf would have ideas about honor or honesty which has been significantly influenced by nobility, I do not think that the same is true for supernatural beliefs.

jjordan
2020-11-01, 11:05 AM
First, lots of great conversation on this. There's a lot of meat in the examples being trotted out on all sides. Thank you.

Second, I'll raise the point that most PC plans in D&D are doomed to failure because of the nature of the dice. Assuming you have to make three dice rolls that exceed a 10 your plan already has a greater than 50% chance of failing at some point. Which means that you're generally better off just attacking.

Third, I like the moral struggle players face. I like them having to decide whether or not to deal with the lesser bad guys to deal with the bigger bad buy. I like them trying to interact with the world I tried to build rather than treating it as a prop backdrop. I like them being aware that actions have reactions and trying to balance their decisions. I like them choosing the nature of the game.

Yora
2020-11-01, 11:06 AM
This said... despite having no problems with players playing villains, I, too, am perpetually annoyed by overthinking players! To such degree that I will time player decision-making and prod them to a make a move if I'm a GM.
That's absolutely true and a real issue in itself. But it has nothing to do with players making long-term plans or being villainous. There is obviously a little bit of overlap, but this topic seems to be clearly about the subjective perception of heroics and villainy.

Quertus
2020-11-01, 12:13 PM
Animate Dead, Summoned Monsters, Hirelings, and Redshirts are a whole 'nother basket of worms - in part because it's so many different issues.

-----

Let's start with the first: setting disconnect. In most settings, animating the dead carries with it a rather negative connotation. Animate Dead is my favorite spell (more on this in a moment), but even I recognize that its effects aren't exactly kosher among the bulk of the citizenry of most civilized D&D worlds - and that's not counting systems where its use is actually, you know, *obviously* evil.

If there is a disconnect between how a player conceptualizes the setting, and how the GM sees it, it is the GM's responsibility to talk to the player and fix this disconnect.

-----

OK, splitting up the rest of these has proven... difficult. So, instead, I'm just going to babble, and mention them as they come up.

When there's combat, it's just a matter of Realism that people might die. In fact, unless people are dying on both sides - especially if all of the combatants one one side *are* dying - it's either going to feel really unrealistic, really well-planned (something that the OP is clearly opposed to), or really one-sided / non-threatening. If you care about Challenge - and, perhaps more importantly, the Illusion of Challenge - then you all but need to have people on the PC's team die. But realistic death rates are not exactly conducive to Roleplaying or Story - modern gamers want Character Retention.

Enter the value of the Red Shirt. Sure, the Command Crew will always live, but the Red Shirts can still be used to demonstrate that the foe is a legitimate threat. Mechanically, perhaps once all the Red Shirts are dead, then the Command Crew becomes vulnerable to death as well.

Alternately, instead of the Command Crew being magically protected, they could surround themselves with Canaries - beings which, statistically, should start dropping before they do. This helps provide that feeling of threat, and lets the players / PCs know when they are in over their heads.

Now, another way to maintain Character Retention is to realize that "Death" is not the only way for someone to become disabled in a fight. Thus, there's systems / tables where "the PCs don't die", or "the PCs don't die without the player's permission". Of course, both this and Fudging may lead to failure of Suspension of Disbelief.

On a related note, some GMs really want to Telegraph the Threat. In fact, many modern players will feel "cheated" if the GM fails to do this. Disposable mooks are a great way to allow the GM to Telegraph the Threat (I guess).

Now, all this is... roughly orthogonal to how callously the players / PCs treat the deaths of the various NPCs. This Lack of Empathy may seem unheroic, but this is really a playstyle thing. It's perfectly valid to be annoyed with people who callously wear baby armor, just as it's perfectly valid to be annoyed with people who spend hours reciting weepy poetry over the death of nameless NPC #17 who died during the exposition.

An additional wrinkle here is Noncom PCs. Pursuant to the "not getting to play" thread (to which I will someday reply, but it's an even *bigger* topic than this), Noncom PCs don't really "get to play" combat scenarios. Allowing the players to puppetmaster the combat NPCs is one solution to this dilemma.

-----

Animating the Dead is a great way to not only add Canaries to the party, but also to bring some Karmic Justice: your punishment for trying to kill me is for your mindless body to serve as my shield.

-----

Which leaves Summoned Monsters.

Presuming a D&D-style game, where the PCs' "day job" is killing monsters, either

1) the monsters you summon aren't "real", so who cares?

2) the monsters *are* real, so... that's that many less monsters in existence if they die (or, more efficiently, if you explicitly get them killed).

or, for D&D specifically,

3) the monsters are outsiders, and
3a) they have to "philosophically agree with you" to be summoned
and/or
3b) they don't really "die" when killed.

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-01, 02:11 PM
While the circular firing squad of semantics continues...

The question here is “what makes thinkers work at a table, and what makes them fail to be fun.”

When they work, it is almost always because the system/GM encourages systems that allow expedited and at times plot-accurate planning. Blades in the Dark has its flashback system, but any time you assume the characters can get to a start position for a scene without specific declaration, you’ve done it to some degree.

Real world planning a month long horse trip to the cave of loot and back, all while dealing with more weight than most people have in their living room, is not a particularly easy affair. Ask anyone who hikes the AT or trains got a marathon. In game we declare our intent and so it goes, with an assumption we got through the “majestic landscape shot” part of the trip without further detail needed at most tables.

When thinkers work well with the system/GM, their plans are often given many of the same benefits of the doubt. If not, the mere act of planning and information gathering can eat sessions. (Some systems, SR, encourage this) And if the GM doesn’t have the information to hand, they may be pointless hours.

Where thinkers work poorly is in systems where all of the “action basic” competence is hand waved, but anything a thinker would want to do is forced through the ringer. As reality sets more and more in, it looks less heroic and it also might be boring the frap out of the table.

Quertus
2020-11-01, 03:20 PM
The question here is “what makes thinkers work at a table, and what makes them fail to be fun.”

Blades in the Dark has its flashback system,

Assuming that this works the way that I believe it does, then per my "why the hate for win buttons" thread, this would be an example of when thinking *doesn't* work: all their planning can be invalidated / replaced by the win button of a flashback sequence, and they feel "cheated" out of their fun.

Cluedrew
2020-11-01, 04:09 PM
Assuming that this works the way that I believe it does, then per my "why the hate for win buttons" thread, this would be an example of when thinking *doesn't* work: all their planning can be invalidated / replaced by the win button of a flashback sequence, and they feel "cheated" out of their fun.You know what they say about assuming...

It doesn't work like that, flashbacks can fail and this explicitly is your planning. Blades in the Dark is not like Shadowrun; its about daring more than cunning and the rules are built around that.

Satinavian
2020-11-01, 04:18 PM
I am a thinker player and when i run a game i like to have planning players as well.
I could play some act now, think later, considering risks is cowardice PC. But i don'z have any fun doing that, so i won't.

And still, i do prefer plans that actually involve mostly the PCs and their abilities. Letting NPCs solve the plot does not feel particularly rewarding, even if the PCs ask the NPCs to d so.


But considering "caring for the lifes of your agents". it seems to me that mindless undead and to some lesser extend summons are more a solution to that particular problem.

Tanarii
2020-11-01, 04:24 PM
Tactical planning and scheming are not the same thing.

Personally as a DM I prefer some player tactical planning. It doesn't need to be extensive before every potential fight. Broad contingency and tactical strokes when setting off into an adventuring site are good though.

What I won't stand for is ooc player tactical planning during combat. That unnecessarily bogs down the game. If you want your character to yell out something short during combat describe that. Enemies may hear it too (but not necessarily understand it). Otherwise do your planning as best you can before the action starts.

Yora
2020-11-01, 04:51 PM
- "They must plotting something."
- "Or maybe they are just listening to the radio?"
- "I know plotting when I see it. That's plotting!"
- "Maybe they are scheeming?"
- "No, scheeming looks different. They are definitely plotting."

paddyfool
2020-11-01, 05:18 PM
Yes, there were heroes who used raw power against all foes and obstacles too, like Hercules, Beowulf and Lancelot, but cunning ones were popular too.



I might take issue with that description of Hercules. A major theme of the 12 Labours was his finding increasingly out of the box solutions to the tasks that he was set. Key examples being his redirection of rivers to cleanse the Augean stables, and his tricking Atlas into taking back the weight of the sky after Atlas retrieved the golden apples for him. A number of his solutions involved leveraging his major asset (physical strength), but equally, it would have been fairly daft of him not to use it where appropriate.

Clistenes
2020-11-01, 07:19 PM
I might take issue with that description of Hercules. A major theme of the 12 Labours was his finding increasingly out of the box solutions to the tasks that he was set. Key examples being his redirection of rivers to cleanse the Augean stables, and his tricking Atlas into taking back the weight of the sky after Atlas retrieved the golden apples for him. A number of his solutions involved leveraging his major asset (physical strength), but equally, it would have been fairly daft of him not to use it where appropriate.

The cleansing of the Augean stables was kinda the odd duck among the Twelve Labours... it was an humiliating task, rather than an heroic one... And while Hercules used his brain more than usual, his solution was a show of raw power as much as a clever trick (I would argue that it was a show of raw power first, and a clever solution second): He dug a channel to the nearby river on his own, and built a dam throwing huge boulders to the river...

As for Atlas, I think that scene is supposed to be comical rather than a show of cleverness... Atlas didn't need to go back to Hercules and tell him that he would take the apples to Tiryns, he could have just walked away the moment Hercules took the weight of Heaven on his shoulders, much less to hold it again in order to allow Hercules to put so cushioning under his knee... I think it was supposed to be a case of the simple, brawny dude tricking an even simpler and brawnier brute...

Anyways, the image of Hercules as somebody who used brute force to solve all problems was quite prevalent: A tale shows him resurrecting the wife of a friend by punching Death so hard it went away. In The Birds play he is shown as a brawny brute who is tricked by king Pisthetaerus into supporting him, and Hercules in turn threatens Tribalo into supporting him against Poseidon...

Saintheart
2020-11-01, 09:13 PM
I've had a long-standing discomfort with Thinker players. These are the ones who insist on planning everything in detail before doing anything--a Thinker "wins" when the actual execution of the plan is a done deal and they've won from the start. In more tactical situations, they tend to want to find "the perfect action" or the "silver bullet" spell that will solve combat with minimal risk and optimum use of resources. And that...irritates me. Irrationally so. It feels like play is bogging down and I find myself tempted to start throwing metaphorical bombs to get things going.

Part of it is a low boredom threshold. I get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That perfect plan? Boring because it's guaranteed to succeed.

But I think there's something deeper and more founded on tropes.

Sad truth #1, courtesy of cognitive psychology: we decide how we feel about something and then make up rationalisations to support the thought that follows from the emotion.

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with your thinking. Quite the contrary. But I really think the best way to handle this for your continued sanity in this sphere is: don't bother making rationalisations for yourself as to why one approach is heroic and another is not; admit to yourself you just don't like this kind of player (as opposed to character), dispense with all need to base your feeling on a rational or thematic basis out of literature, and just play the type of campaign you want to play with the type of people you can stand for 3 hours at a stretch. RPGing is not an expression of our personal philosophies, nor is it some great game of morals. It is escapism and a social game and typically if people don't like a social game they stop playing it, or play it with others more like themselves.

For my part, I don't particularly like the overly obsessed thinker myself who insists on a perfectly crafted plan either. And that's mainly because of the not-uncommon phenomenon already alluded to in the thread: high chance of emotional regulation problems if some aspect of the perfectly crafted plan doesn't, y'know, go according to plan.

But can I suggest a couple of other thoughts when considering the type of game you're going to run:

- It's one thing to get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That's a key advantage of the spectator. The issue to manage is that you're not just a spectator, you're the DM. That means that arbitrarily declaring that the tractable guard you can blackmail got sick today and his straight-as-an-arrow buddy Gorf picked up his shift have to be managed with some subtlety, otherwise it will look like you're putting the hand on the scale against the players for no reason other than that you think their plan will succeed without a hitch. I suspect this is often why the perfect plan player starts arguing vehemently when some aspect of their plan fails: because they assume - wrongly or otherwise - that the DM has decided to just mess with the plan because he doesn't want the players to 'win'. The perfect plan player makes his plans assuming a fair DM and a fairly strong adherence to the rules. At least in 3.0, the ruleset is large enough that they can calculate pretty strongly their odds of success, so if you're going to mess with the plan, you'd better have a decent reason for it.

- As a corollary, it's one thing to be a spectator to a situation that's rapidly going out of control. It's another thing to be inside said situation, and that's the players' issue. The guy who does perfect plans typically doesn't have a backup plan if it goes wrong, and not uncommonly insists on the perfect plan because s/he has a problem improvising. Maybe that's worth thinking about.

- In passing: I get you don't like heist-y situations. This is both understandable and ironic because the way a heist film actually generates any tension at all is the risk, and in most cases, the eventuality, that the plan is going to go south. The best heist movies not only cause the plan to go south, but then force the characters to come up with a plan on the run which still manages to work out ... or work out sort-of differently. Maybe one solution to the problem is that if you're going to ruin the perfectly crafted plan, be more rubbery on methods the players use to improvise a way out of the hole the failed plan puts them in.

icefractal
2020-11-01, 09:32 PM
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about heists myself too, and it's indeed for the reason that planning is both an essential part and potentially a huge pain in the ass.

Like, "true" planning - the GM has determined all details of the situation in advance, the players make a plan and act on it, nothing retroactive - gives the most feeling of immersion. But it also has some pitfalls:
1) Planning can take an excessively long time, much of which could be going back and forth between equivalently-viable possibilities because of indecision or disagreement.
2) To support this in a truly impartial way, the GM need to do a lot of prep.
3) There's not guarantee the result will be dramatically satisfying. The plan might just not work, at all, and not in a fun way either. Or it might work so well the actual execution is done in five minutes.

Then there's retroactive planning, which can solve all these, but can also feel "fake" and more like you have a limited pool of "solve problems" magic than that you're a mastermind.

And then there's "scripted plans" where the GM already has a plan in mind, perhaps introduced by an NPC, and the expectation is you follow that. Which is ok as a thing in itself, but is different enough that players expecting the other type would likely feel burned.

That said, I played in a game with a heist-like premise recently and it went well - I think the fact that we weren't taking it too seriously helped. Neither OOC (the game is fairly comedic) nor IC (our characters were not that professional). So we came up with a somewhat questionable plan, declared it good enough, and rolled with it. Even then the planning almost got bogged down, it's easy to get stuck trying to consider all possible options.

Yora
2020-11-02, 04:08 AM
Anyways, the image of Hercules as somebody who used brute force to solve all problems was quite prevalent: A tale shows him resurrecting the wife of a friend by punching Death so hard it went away. In The Birds play he is shown as a brawny brute who is tricked by king Pisthetaerus into supporting him, and Hercules in turn threatens Tribalo into supporting him against Poseidon...

Cunning was one of the prime virtues for heroes in Greek myths.
Cheating and getting away with it was seen as highly heroic.

You see the same thing happening with Conan the Cimmerian. He's not a simple-minded brute who acts on impulse. He is always very calculated when it comes to facing off against ancient sorcerers.
Maybe there really was something in the mid 20th century that made thinking heroes unpopular.

I saw somewhere someone claim that in early cold war movies from the 50s, scientists were regularly portrayed as ruthless madmen who sacrifice honest two-fisted men to pursue power, or as misguided fools who tried to reach out peacefully to the inherently evil threats, endangering everyone because they want to study it.
I believe intellectuals were a primary target of the Red Scare. Traitors who undermine the fighting spirit of those who fight the good fight. (That actually would explain a lot of thing.)

Quertus
2020-11-02, 10:45 AM
I guess my related personal discomfort would be with...
people who mistake "goals" for "plans"
people with poor impulse control
people who are incapable of - or actively opposed to - contingencies


That last one *definitely* includes obsessive planners who would only create a single, fragile plan. :smallyuk: I have no interest in (and perhaps even a mild dislike for) plans being "perfect"; I only care about planning for flexibility. This discomfort with engineered inflexibility also includes the BDF who doesn't bring a ranged weapon, or the ability to fly, or anything other than their one single attack mode, and then just sits their useless when their one trick isn't applicable. :smallannoyed: Or the fire mage who has only fire, and then sits their useless when fire is not the answer. :smallannoyed: Or the telepath who has only telepathy, and sits there useless against undead and robots. :smallannoyed:

Unless your character concept is actually "total noob who has never done anything in this world before", your character coming off as a total noob who has not lived in this world is just annoying - to me, at least.


You know what they say about assuming...

It doesn't work like that, flashbacks can fail and this explicitly is your planning. Blades in the Dark is not like Shadowrun; its about daring more than cunning and the rules are built around that.

So, planning doesn't work in that system, because it's explicitly forbidden? Well, that's an even harder "no" than I expected.

Satinavian
2020-11-03, 02:10 AM
You know what they say about assuming...

It doesn't work like that, flashbacks can fail and this explicitly is your planning. Blades in the Dark is not like Shadowrun; its about daring more than cunning and the rules are built around that.
Sounds horrible.

Why would "Thinker players" want to play a game about daring ? If those players would like daring instead of cunning, they would never have been categorized as thinker players. You remember, the complaints were too much planning and a tendency to avoid risks to the point that the actual plan execution might became boring. Does that sound like a daring player ?


Some people are not gamblers. And if gambling is necessary for your game, they might look elsewhere.

Mechalich
2020-11-03, 03:27 AM
I think it's highly relevant and important for this sort of discussion to differentiate between two different kinds of 'thinker' characters.

1. Characters that rely on cunning, deceit, manipulation, underhanded tactics, and general skullduggery vs.

2. Characters they rely on the deployment of other assets.

In archetypical terms this would be the difference between the Trickster and the Strategist.

Tricksters work just fine in heroic fantasy and in tabletop gaming parties. Heck, many classic characters in such formulations, such as Han Solo, easily fit this category, and many characters of more classically heroic bent adopt trickster profiles from time to time, including even such paragons of virtue as Superman - whose been know to rely on his wits against such unconventional foes as Mr. Myxzptlk.

It's Strategists that are more problematic, largely because their activities tend to take place at least one step removed from the action and because by the nature of that removal they are often partially or wholly shielded from any personal risk. It also happens that strategists make their moves, whatever those moves may be, before the engagement actually occurs, meaning that when blended with non-strategist characters they may spend the climax standing around not doing anything while the others are desperately fighting for their lives.

To use an example that's already been mentioned, the Ocean's franchise, most of the characters in Ocean's qualify as some kind of trickster, and when the big heist ultimately occurs every member of the crew has some role to play in making sure all the pieces fit. Except for Ruben, the character played by Elliot Gould. He's the strategist, and in the climax, all he does is sit back, watch events unfold, and reap a massive payday with a side of vengeance. His ability is entirely based in his money and his ability to pick personnel to make the heist happen.

For another example, consider a character who takes the same assets and deploys them as a trickster rather than as a strategist. An ideal example is actually Batman, or rather Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is obsessed with stopping crime in Gotham. He has three major assets: an extremely cunning mind, a massive level of personal fanaticism, and a giant pile of cash. As Batman he trains super hard in a wide range of fields to make himself awesome, uses his money to buy a combat suit and a whole bunch of gadgets, and then throws himself at criminal organizations in a wide variety of schemes and counter-schemes. Okay, that's great, now we have one of the most beloved characters in superhero fiction. But what if Bruce never puts on the batsuit? What if, instead, he fights crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist, Wayne Foundation CEO, and lobbyist extraordinaire. This version of Bruce is a master of policy and politics and sets out to remake Gotham from the ground up using NGOs, legal maneuvering, exposure of corrupt police and politicians, and in time a complete rewrite of the political and economic structure of the city to reduce crime and end urban blight. That version of Bruce Wayne might actually be considerably more effective than Batman at reducing crime (ordinary crime anyway, the calculus shifts when actual supervillains with superhuman abilities get involved), but he cannot function as a pulpy action hero.

You can certainly have strategist heroes in literature, Zhuge Liang is a nice famous example. You can have them in single player games of all kinds, in many RTS settings that's the character you, the player represent ("Greetings Executor!"). You can even have them in a squad based pulp series - but as the supervisor, not as one of the gang (ex. the relationship between Professor X and the X-men).

Quertus
2020-11-03, 08:13 AM
I think it's highly relevant and important for this sort of discussion to differentiate between two different kinds of 'thinker' characters.

1. Characters that rely on cunning, deceit, manipulation, underhanded tactics, and general skullduggery vs.

2. Characters they rely on the deployment of other assets.

In archetypical terms this would be the difference between the Trickster and the Strategist.

Tricksters work just fine in heroic fantasy and in tabletop gaming parties. Heck, many classic characters in such formulations, such as Han Solo, easily fit this category, and many characters of more classically heroic bent adopt trickster profiles from time to time, including even such paragons of virtue as Superman - whose been know to rely on his wits against such unconventional foes as Mr. Myxzptlk.

It's Strategists that are more problematic, largely because their activities tend to take place at least one step removed from the action and because by the nature of that removal they are often partially or wholly shielded from any personal risk. It also happens that strategists make their moves, whatever those moves may be, before the engagement actually occurs, meaning that when blended with non-strategist characters they may spend the climax standing around not doing anything while the others are desperately fighting for their lives.

To use an example that's already been mentioned, the Ocean's franchise, most of the characters in Ocean's qualify as some kind of trickster, and when the big heist ultimately occurs every member of the crew has some role to play in making sure all the pieces fit. Except for Ruben, the character played by Elliot Gould. He's the strategist, and in the climax, all he does is sit back, watch events unfold, and reap a massive payday with a side of vengeance. His ability is entirely based in his money and his ability to pick personnel to make the heist happen.

For another example, consider a character who takes the same assets and deploys them as a trickster rather than as a strategist. An ideal example is actually Batman, or rather Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is obsessed with stopping crime in Gotham. He has three major assets: an extremely cunning mind, a massive level of personal fanaticism, and a giant pile of cash. As Batman he trains super hard in a wide range of fields to make himself awesome, uses his money to buy a combat suit and a whole bunch of gadgets, and then throws himself at criminal organizations in a wide variety of schemes and counter-schemes. Okay, that's great, now we have one of the most beloved characters in superhero fiction. But what if Bruce never puts on the batsuit? What if, instead, he fights crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist, Wayne Foundation CEO, and lobbyist extraordinaire. This version of Bruce is a master of policy and politics and sets out to remake Gotham from the ground up using NGOs, legal maneuvering, exposure of corrupt police and politicians, and in time a complete rewrite of the political and economic structure of the city to reduce crime and end urban blight. That version of Bruce Wayne might actually be considerably more effective than Batman at reducing crime (ordinary crime anyway, the calculus shifts when actual supervillains with superhuman abilities get involved), but he cannot function as a pulpy action hero.

You can certainly have strategist heroes in literature, Zhuge Liang is a nice famous example. You can have them in single player games of all kinds, in many RTS settings that's the character you, the player represent ("Greetings Executor!"). You can even have them in a squad based pulp series - but as the supervisor, not as one of the gang (ex. the relationship between Professor X and the X-men).

Even ignoring the weakness of your definition of the Strategist, it is important to point out the fact that Batman is both Trickster and Strategist. He makes careful observations of all his allies, and develops contingency plans for taking any of the down. He collects items (decidedly including Kryptonite) to facilitate such endeavors.

If Batman were purely a "kick in the door" action hero, he would be nowhere near as effective as he is by also being a Strategist.

And I don't think he'd be as popular, either.

In fact, in an RPG, the non-strategist BDF with no ranged attack, no flight, no ability to deal with things beyond pushing their single button for their single trick often tends to be unpopular as well IME.

So I think that the proper balance of strategy is important to making a good character.

Strategists are only "a problem" in "kick in the door", "beer and pretzels", "high action, low thought" games. And, yes, it's a spectrum; more generally, characters are problematic when they live outside the game's/group's range - in this case, the action/thought range in the spectrum.

Per my "why the hate for win buttons" thread, I can see either feeling like the other is "cheating" or "stealing their fun".

IMO, if both sides can learn "cooperation 101" Spotlight Sharing, there shouldn't be any problem where/how the other side gets their jollies.

Thus, as always, I advocate accepting the largest possible size of range.

However, even I admit, Combat has the awesome bonus that "everyone gets to participate" is kinda the default; other minigames often lack this (by virtue of "only one person gets to open the door", or by virtue of "really, the rest of you aren't helping, please stop singing 'bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre'.").

Cluedrew
2020-11-03, 08:36 AM
So, planning doesn't work in that system, because it's explicitly forbidden? Well, that's an even harder "no" than I expected.
Why would "Thinker players" want to play a game about daring ?How nice of you to be open to different play-styles. Which is to say, not it is not for thinker gameplay (I'm not going to say thinker players as I sometimes one and I want to play Blades in the Dark for completely different reasons). Blades in the Dark is built to - among other things - stop analysis paralysis. So if you are the one who makes people start to wonder when the next thing in the game is actually going to happen, yes don't come here for Shadowrun Trench-Coat (or is it Mirror Shades, the one opposite Pink Mohawk) style gameplay.

But if you are someone who finds endless planning frustrating - as in the first post of this thread - maybe give it a look. On the other hand if you want to play more heroic heroes - also mention in that post - maybe not.

Satinavian
2020-11-03, 08:42 AM
How nice of you to be open to different play-styles. Which is to say, not it is not for thinker gameplay (I'm not going to say thinker players as I sometimes one and I want to play Blades in the Dark for completely different reasons). Blades in the Dark is built to - among other things - stop analysis paralysis. So if you are the one who makes people start to wonder when the next thing in the game is actually going to happen, yes don't come here for Shadowrun Trench-Coat (or is it Mirror Shades, the one opposite Pink Mohawk) style gameplay.

But if you are someone who finds endless planning frustrating - as in the first post of this thread - maybe give it a look. On the other hand if you want to play more heroic heroes - also mention in that post - maybe not.If you are frustrated because your players like Mirror Shade gameplay and you don't, switching to a system that is not for Mirror shades won't solve your problems, just annoy your players.

I don't say that "Blades in the Dark" is bad. Just that it probably is not a good fit for thinker players who actually like planning and avoiding risks.

King of Nowhere
2020-11-03, 09:15 AM
I think I may have miscommunicated. Heroes can plan and don't have to just charge in, but their plans revolve around them taking action. Not tricking others into doing it for them while they stand back and watch. Because heroes accept the risks and don't push them off onto others. And most of the time, the Thinkers' I've played with have been the latter. They'll delay taking action because they're not ready yet, even though innocents are suffering and dying. They want one master-stroke to finish off the enemy all at once, instead of getting in there and saving people.

Consider the first Captain America film. Cap decides to take action, despite it being basically suicide and being ordered not to by the "planners". He knew the innocents and his friend couldn't wait for them to get a perfect plan together.

There's a difference between being smart and being cowardly. And too often, Thinkers end up being the second. What else do you call those who are willing to see anyone else hurt but themselves? Heroes stand in the way of evil, whether with swords and guns or with clever words and social grace. They don't hide behind others. They don't treat others as disposable tools.


this has nothing to do with planning or plotting, it is merely a matter of altruism.
the problem with your players is not that they plot, but that they sacrifice others for the sake of their goals. they could do the same without plotting either. just like they could make plots that protect the people.
it's just that, when given the choice to sacrifice some mooks to increase their safety, they choose to do so. they could do the same without plotting, for example if the villain had put some hostages in a death trap and the party decided to leave them behind and focus on destroying the villain.

as for taking your time to plan every action during combat, this is another - and separate - matter. some people like to treat it as a tactical game. some people prefer the immersive angle, where they must try to declare an action on the fly. anyway, some players do it poorly, and you may have been saddled with such a bunch

Quertus
2020-11-03, 11:04 AM
How nice of you to be open to different play-styles.

Blades in the Dark is built to - among other things - stop analysis paralysis.


If you are frustrated because your players like Mirror Shade gameplay and you don't, switching to a system that is not for Mirror shades won't solve your problems, just annoy your players.

I don't say that "Blades in the Dark" is bad. Just that it probably is not a good fit for thinker players who actually like planning and avoiding risks.

My comment was similarly intended to indicate how poorly suited BitD is to proper planning Players/Characters/Gameplay. Just like how a game with only prefab characters is poorly suited to the character creation minigame. Or a setting with nothing but muggles is poorly suited to my desire for the Magical.

If, instead of "my players are killing my fun with planning; I'm gonna be a **** and remove their fun (instead of talking to them about it like an adult)", your problem is, "my players are losing fun from having a planning phase because of decision paralysis", then, yes, BitD may be a good bit of medicine. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a hard "no" for planners (players or characters) for completely removing all "planning" gameplay.


this has nothing to do with planning or plotting, it is merely a matter of altruism.
the problem with your players is not that they plot, but that they sacrifice others for the sake of their goals. they could do the same without plotting either. just like they could make plots that protect the people.
it's just that, when given the choice to sacrifice some mooks to increase their safety, they choose to do so. they could do the same without plotting, for example if the villain had put some hostages in a death trap and the party decided to leave them behind and focus on destroying the villain.

That is a very clear way of expressing a common sentiment in this thread. Kudos!

Xervous
2020-11-03, 11:06 AM
To me some degree of planning goes hand in hand with immersion (and agency). It’s a back and forth of clarification and additional information that helps frame the world that allows me to make an informed decision as if I were my character. Strip out the planning (and in absence of an existing understanding) it’s fast paced guess and check. Unprompted, it tends towards a gotcha if the choice works against you. “You didn’t say you bowed to the king” when there wasn’t any hinting that this was critical (substitute anything more exotic as needed). Or it may tread on your mental image of your character. “My character wouldn’t do more than a poor excuse for a bow,” when the GM hands out what he assumes is a default favorable action. Maybe the players could have spent downtime researching, eating up maybe 5 minutes of table time to get a few bullet points from the GM. Choosing not to do that could have consequences and assuming “everyone bows” removes that consequence just as surely as a conveniently unseen pool of water at the bottom of a deep spiky pit.

What does it all boil down to? I view the game as a dialogue in a limited medium and prefer risking extra time to reduce misunderstandings rather than trust blindly and chance damaging immersion and verisimilitude. If the GM assumes too much I’m not playing my character, I’m piloting a script be it a combat number grinder or a prewritten role.

Cluedrew
2020-11-03, 09:36 PM
I don't say that "Blades in the Dark" is bad. Just that it probably is not a good fit for thinker players who actually like planning and avoiding risks.
My comment was similarly intended to indicate how poorly suited BitD is to proper planning Players/Characters/Gameplay.One apology for misunderstanding, one apology for lumping you two together. Sorry about that. Don't post angry.

icefractal
2020-11-04, 02:30 PM
If you are frustrated because your players like Mirror Shade gameplay and you don't, switching to a system that is not for Mirror shades won't solve your problems, just annoy your players.TBF, it might solve your problems. Either the players are ok with less planning and just assumed high-planning was the default, or they're not happy without planning. In the latter case, you have incompatible tastes and you probably shouldn't be running a game with those players. Or if you do, there should be an OOC discussion and compromise.

What I can say from experience doesn't work is trying to solve the problem IC by restricting information or trying to impose penalties for taking too long. Because of several reasons -
1) Insufficient information means people plan on how to get more information, or spend more time making multiple contingency plans to compensate.
2) Two hours of planning is a long time IRL, but a very reasonable - short, even - time for the characters to spend planning a mission. And if the game includes something like "it takes you two days by boat to reach the location" then that's the excuse for any amount of planning they want.
3) If they planned and still failed or partially failed, the likely response is "****, didn't plan well enough, we'd better be more thorough next time."

On a personal note, I was on the planner side of this once. The GM had in mind a dilemma where because of time and resource limits we wouldn't be able to save everyone and would need to choose. I didn't realize that - I saw it as a challenging resource-management problem and went about squeezing the most from every hour with the goal of 'meeting the challenge' by saving everyone. He threw in obstacles to that, but I just perceived them as part of the difficulty and kept trying to solve them all. Eventually we both got pretty frustrated, which could all have been avoided by a little OOC discussion.

Pex
2020-11-04, 04:27 PM
On a personal note, I was on the planner side of this once. The GM had in mind a dilemma where because of time and resource limits we wouldn't be able to save everyone and would need to choose. I didn't realize that - I saw it as a challenging resource-management problem and went about squeezing the most from every hour with the goal of 'meeting the challenge' by saving everyone. He threw in obstacles to that, but I just perceived them as part of the difficulty and kept trying to solve them all. Eventually we both got pretty frustrated, which could all have been avoided by a little OOC discussion.

Curious if the obstacles were always there or the DM made them up on the spot on purpose to stop you from saving everyone because no matter what you were not allowed to save everyone.

KorvinStarmast
2020-11-04, 04:33 PM
Since I'm a cleric I'm thinking of just turning them, which I can disintegrate. I see trouble ahead. So do it, and see what the reaction is. (Are you friends, or is this a random game?)

Sometimes interactions like that can be productive. Other times, not.

Quertus
2020-11-04, 06:42 PM
One apology for misunderstanding, one apology for lumping you two together. Sorry about that. Don't post angry.

Apology unnecessary. I doubt I've *ever* felt any anger at your posts. Heck, I've rarely felt more than mildly annoyed at *anyone* on this site (other than myself), even in the midst of seemingly heated debate - this site and its Playgrounders are awesome! (Also, as ever, apologies to all for being… my abrasive self. Thanks again to everyone for their understanding).

So, no worries - I certainly wasn't offended or posting angry, merely clarifying :smallwink:

EDIT: you did seem to lump us together in your apology though :smalltongue:

MrStabby
2020-11-04, 08:43 PM
I've had a long-standing discomfort with Thinker players. These are the ones who insist on planning everything in detail before doing anything--a Thinker "wins" when the actual execution of the plan is a done deal and they've won from the start. In more tactical situations, they tend to want to find "the perfect action" or the "silver bullet" spell that will solve combat with minimal risk and optimum use of resources. And that...irritates me. Irrationally so. It feels like play is bogging down and I find myself tempted to start throwing metaphorical bombs to get things going.

Part of it is a low boredom threshold. I get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That perfect plan? Boring because it's guaranteed to succeed.

But I think there's something deeper and more founded on tropes.
---------------
The classic hero/villain situation goes something like this:
1. Villain has complicated plot that involves maneuvering everyone into the right position with minimal direct involvement. The villain uses bunches of disposable mooks, magic/psychic manipulation, or just social scheming. But during this phase they're basically not at risk. Their victory is assured, like a rock rolling downhill.
2. And then the heroes stumble onto the plot somehow. And start mucking things up. While they may have plans and goals, the heroes are mostly about action. They investigate, start turning over rocks and squishing the bugs that crawl out.
3. Climactic showdown where the heroes bring the risk home to the villain and defeat them (in combat or otherwise).
4. The villain complains something like a Scooby Doo villain: And I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling [kids|heroes]!

That is, Villains Have Plots. Heroes act.

And more than that, villains put others at risk, while heroes put themselves at risk. Villains have mooks, heroes have friends. Villains manipulate from the shadows, heroes drag them and their devious plots into the light. Villains have subordinates and henchmen who act out of fear or greed, heroes make converts and treat them as equals. Villains induce betrayal out of self-interest or by blackmail or threats, heroes convert others by persuasion and love (lust, frequently).

Even the most direct villains tend to not be seen as bad guys as much unless they actively take horrific actions. The Noble Warrior type, who lives for battle and respects the heroes for facing him head on is much lower on the scale of evil than the Manipulator or Overlord type. Not good, but less bad. And almost always a lieutenant to a bigger bad. And frequently gets a conversion/redemption arc. Manipulators and plotters rarely do, in my experience.

So when players start doing the plotting and Xanatos Gambit routines or start relying on hiring (or summoning or binding) hordes of disposable mooks to act as meat walls, they don't feel like heroes. They feel like villains. Heroes may plan, but their plans are more on the tactical level and revolve around the members of the team, this band of equals, acting according to their strengths. The big guys charge in and hold attention while the mages roast people or debuff and the support types...well...support. They don't go in for mind games or domination or underhanded gambits--they're not necessarily nice or stupid, but they tend to cut through the walls of BS that the villains put up as defense.

And most importantly, they accept risk. Heroes take the risk onto themselves. That isn't to say that they are rash or foolhardy, and making the other poor sod die for his country is always more useful than valiantly dying for your own (to paraphrase General Patton). But they recognize that there is risk, and accept it on themselves instead of trying to find a way to minimize it and act at a distance. That's a villain's ploy--hide behind walls and mooks and plots. Heroes lead armies from the front, villains stand back and let others do the fighting and dying.
---------------
Is this entirely rational? No. But I think, for me, it explains a large chunk of why I'm not comfortable with the Thinker players. And why I don't like heist-style play. It feels...villainous. And I don't play villains. I struggle to go beyond the corner of (in D&D terms) LG/LN/NG. I can understand CG, but anything below that just makes me go ewww.

It also spills over to a dislike of mook-based play, whether that's by hiring tons of disposable commoners, summoning armies, raising the undead, or binding other creatures to your will. In the end, it's all about putting someone (or something) else into harm's way so that you can stand back and be comfortable and safe.


I have some... thoughts. Unstructure ramblings on the topic anyway.

I think this plays into pillars of the game. If we have combat/exploration and social, what does being a planner mean? Well it implies that they aready have enough knowledge to plan. Exploration might be unfulfilling for them - they don't like discovery in the moment as they don't like to be surprised. Likewise social might be associated with others guiding them to a cause or course of action. Planners are taking the initiative (and taking it too far is the problem) so they neither need nor desire a lot of the social input. And combat... well it is either avoided or solved ahead of time.

I think that some of this can be turned on its head though. Give a big enough problem and let the pieces of the game fall into supporting their planning. The exploration pillar can be diving into ancient cultures to find solutions to the BBEG - the reward isn't treasure but enough lore to let the PCs build a plan. The social side can have enough deciet to ensure that people are not trustworthy pawns and that the information/actions provided are useful - but the social yields of knowing who you cannot trust will result in the party having to do some things themselves.

And combat - its fine for the party to take the initiative but make sure they are living in a proactive world. Whilst they are plotting the bad guys are trying to figure out what threat they pose and neutralise it. It's fine for you to make plans - but when the bad guy teleports into your volcano lair 8 hours before you are ready to go and starts wrecking stuff you need to improvise.



Then there is involvement. I don't mind planning - as long as everyone at the table gets to contribute. This means no one is shut out of big sections of the game as they don't have useful class abilities for that part. It also means that I think planning is less appropriate if not everyone likes that style... or it may just need to be moderated.




I think there is an issue around metagaming that comes up. OK, so this shady guy is probably a Vampire, so we do a daytime raid and constrict a crane to lift the roof of his house? It presupposes that vampires are as well known in the game world as their fictional counterparts are to us. The player's knowledge of the game structure, monster capabilities, existance of magic items or a whole load of other things come into their planing, often without players realising it.


Then there is rules abuse - "creative" uses of spells. Exploiting unclear interactions between magic and physics. Using spells that were designed for stand alone efects in conjunction with each other. Essentially abusing the fact that magic isn't bound by strict conservation laws/symmetry to avoid playing the game...


Which comes to... Players opted in to playing a particular game. It might be D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or whatever - but given it was opted into, there is a reasonable expectation that time at the table will be spend using some aspects of the game system opted into. It isn't wrong to plan but time spent on this is taking up time that could be spent rolling dice and adventuring.



I have mixed views on your Thinkers. I think they can be a great way to drive greater engagement with a setting and it can be a very stimulating form of gameplay. It can also be a drag, diminish fun for some, and bring to the fore a lot of other behaviours that whilst not the worst that can happen, are still not great to have at the table.

Cluedrew
2020-11-04, 10:14 PM
So, no worries - I certainly wasn't offended or posting angry, merely clarifying :smallwink:Whether anyone was offended by it I don't like how that post came together so I apologize for it. I was briefly considering explaining how I consider/use apologies but... maybe another time.

My point is I want to highlight how Blades in the Dark can be used as a tool for those who want to avoid getting bogged down in excessive planning. Yes, don't spring it on people who want to plan, but if the group wants to play the same sort of archetypes as Shadowrun but not actually do that planning (as one plays a barbarian without learning how to use a sword) it is actually built for that. Its not going to suit every game (and if you think any system does you are fooling yourself... or have focused tastes) but I think it does what it wants to pretty well.

Batcathat
2020-11-05, 03:04 AM
If we have combat/exploration and social, what does being a planner mean? Well it implies that they aready have enough knowledge to plan. Exploration might be unfulfilling for them - they don't like discovery in the moment as they don't like to be surprised. Likewise social might be associated with others guiding them to a cause or course of action. Planners are taking the initiative (and taking it too far is the problem) so they neither need nor desire a lot of the social input. And combat... well it is either avoided or solved ahead of time.

Considering real world explorers and soldiers both spend a lot of time planning (whether you're gonna reach the South Pole or invade a country, you're probably not just going to grab your gear and rush in), I don't see why planners wouldn't fit in either scenario. Planning isn't just deciding an exact plan for what to do, it can also be planning for a number of different eventualities that might occur.


And combat - its fine for the party to take the initiative but make sure they are living in a proactive world. Whilst they are plotting the bad guys are trying to figure out what threat they pose and neutralise it. It's fine for you to make plans - but when the bad guy teleports into your volcano lair 8 hours before you are ready to go and starts wrecking stuff you need to improvise.

That's true, though I'd say it's important for a GM that plays like that to do it fairly. If the bad guy can attack the party before they're ready, the party should also be able to attack the bad guy before he's ready.


Then there is involvement. I don't mind planning - as long as everyone at the table gets to contribute. This means no one is shut out of big sections of the game as they don't have useful class abilities for that part. It also means that I think planning is less appropriate if not everyone likes that style... or it may just need to be moderated.

Again, that's true but should be applied fairly. If half the party are planners and half prefer to go Leeroy Jenkins in every situation the planners shouldn't always overrule the Leeroys but neither should it be the other way around.


I think there is an issue around metagaming that comes up. OK, so this shady guy is probably a Vampire, so we do a daytime raid and constrict a crane to lift the roof of his house? It presupposes that vampires are as well known in the game world as their fictional counterparts are to us. The player's knowledge of the game structure, monster capabilities, existance of magic items or a whole load of other things come into their planing, often without players realising it.

Metagaming is bad, but I'm not sure it's more of a problem with planners. If anything, the metagaming is more obvious if the characters are in the middle of hectic combat with no previous plan but somehow still know to do the exactly right thing for the situation.

sktarq
2020-11-07, 05:20 PM
I think for me there are a couple different kinds of planning problems being bandied about.

There is tactical planning that slows the game...this usually shows up in combat and has the player planning on the spot for how to deal with what is in front of them...often talking to each each other OOC and producing effects as though there was IC communication w/o actual IC communication. Also it incorporates serious time distortion. In a six/seven/ten second round (depending on game) the PLAYER may spend several minutes talking, mulling, and planning. Repeated over the party this can easily drag a couple round (less than a minute game time) skirmish into a multi-hour drag.

There are the planners who pre-plan whole sections of how they will tackle the plot or big event. Usually pre-planning. This would presumably occur IC as well during downtime at near real speed. Some may well even eat up significant in game time in order to collect info to help this. I personally have little issue with this. No incoming info is going to be perfect. . . a good imperative plan that the players worked hard on should be rewarded. But few DM/ST's etc are usually trained to think about dealing with planning like this. Their own world is reactive to the players and pre-set from the adventure packet or notes...ex) no matter what time of day the players show up the witch will be making dinner or the monster will be in. Planning can help a lot but often planning players rely on things like this. It is a lot of extra work to try and deal with this tbh and requires a different type of thinking very often. Oh your planned target has friends over to his tower for dinner the particular night the PC's attack? Sure why not. History is full of such real somewhat weird events. Archduke Ferdinand's driver getting lost in just the right way for example. An actual good plan could handle that a brittle one can't. Also planning should have opportunity cost. A serial killer or raiding monster may well raid again while the PC's are not attacking it and the PC's/players can be powerfully effected by scenes of such things.

Then there are those who plan to bypass the adventure as the creator saw it. Which honestly, just happens. The players figure out that the best solution comes from talking to the right person? I have to ask...why is that a problem? you gave them a challenge and they solved it with the tools available in the world which is ya know, their part in the game. Building your challenges with this in mind can be more challenging and can get into railroading if you are not careful. But can also give you interesting opportunities. (the PC's needing to go into favor-debt to some other PC to get their plan filled which can be called in as a different hook). Also is using cats paws the PC would need to remember that the NPC's are meant to represent full humans with complex lives in a complex society and they may not react the way the players want just because they want it. and honestly I think most DM's are not good at dealing with this sort of thing....the player says something that kinda makes sense so the GM agrees..and then does so again...pretty soon the player has reasonabled his way through the issue...when people etc are often not "reasonable" that way particularly societies as whole who have their own issues and conflicts. Now dealing with those can actually be fun if done well and is a different tack but often the GM's just roll over for this kinda stuff....agan this is whole different kind of work than goes into a lot of normal DM planning...

patchyman
2020-11-12, 12:07 PM
There are the planners who pre-plan whole sections of how they will tackle the plot or big event. Usually pre-planning. This would presumably occur IC as well during downtime at near real speed. Some may well even eat up significant in game time in order to collect info to help this. I personally have little issue with this. No incoming info is going to be perfect. . .

I agree with a lot of what you said but I would add that the DM is a player too, and his fun matters as much as the players.

It simply isnÂ’t very much fun for the DM to sit in the room and do nothing (except answer the occasional question) while the players debate and discuss the merits and flaws of different plans (and often get locked into debating minutiae). In many groups, you have limited game time so an hour or two spent planning can really cut into game time. If the players do the planning outside of the game (while sending the DM the occasional e-mail), I think most DMs would be happy the players are taking an interest in the game.

Edit: of course all this is orthogonal to legitimate concerns of not wanting to DM villainous or extremely anti-heroic PCs.

Xervous
2020-11-12, 12:30 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said but I would add that the DM is a player too, and his fun matters as much as the players.

It simply isnÂ’t very much fun for the DM to sit in the room and do nothing (except answer the occasional question) while the players debate and discuss the merits and flaws of different plans (and often get locked into debating minutiae). In many groups, you have limited game time so an hour or two spent planning can really cut into game time. If the players do the planning outside of the game (while sending the DM the occasional e-mail), I think most DMs would be happy the players are taking an interest in the game.

Edit: of course all this is orthogonal to legitimate concerns of not wanting to DM villainous or extremely anti-heroic PCs.

On the contrary it’s plenty fun for players to get into planning. It’s only dull when the planning itself is dull or stagnant. Back and forth player discussions are very similar to RP (it might even be RP!)

You get high player activity and involvement with a lot of shared spotlight time. These players care enough about the game and/or setting that they’re thinking rather than begging to be led by the nose. Sometimes there’s too much planning, so the GM adds explosions. Sometimes the players want another bloody mosh pit but it’s now time for stopping and thinking. Players being able to entertain each other through RP and planning is another feature, not a bug. Use it if it meets your goals, mine being ‘deliver an environment that entertains‘. That big history of the local land? The mysterious metal ships dominating a once peaceful shipping lane? The bard and the squirrel prophet debating how to best cultivate plants? The whole party drafting an outline for what specialists they should hire for their boat? I don’t need to present every option for the players to choose to engage with it, and this isn’t a CRPG that strikes down any input that isn’t predefined.

LordCdrMilitant
2020-11-12, 01:08 PM
I love planning action and acting aggressively and offensively.

The general paradigm of perpetual reaction to blunt the enemy's repeated offensives until somehow you find your way to the big boss and kill them gets frustrating and tiring for me.


Also, just because you have a plan, doesn't mean it will go off without a hitch. Usually I have my players compose a plan of action, and then present some kind of challenge that messes up the plan of action and forces them to adapt the plan in the moment.

Devils_Advocate
2020-11-13, 10:56 PM
Good guys can change things. And they often do. It's just they have either a) more modest goals than world domination or b) goals that are orthogonal to big flashy stuff. IMX, heroes have goals and plans that are basically downtime things. Have a family, work towards the good. Own a tavern.

Evil tends to go for the sweeping changes to society--Good knows that that's a deception all in its own. Good comes from the individual. Good men have more often fallen to evil by trying to change everything else (ie For the Greater Good) than by direct seduction by evil. So Good focuses on those close at hand. At least how I see it.

Also, since the world in films is not generally a crapsack (thankfully, grimdark is not interesting to me at all), heroes are generally fighting to preserve the light from the forces of darkness, rather than trying to bring the light. The world is generally good, so there's more scope for evil to have large-scale plots. That's the nature of a bounded spectrum. Just like it's easier to drop your grade if it's high and raise it if it's low than vice versa.
A civilization that isn't a utopia is built on systems of control that benefit those with greater power at the expense of those with lesser power. The king enjoys a much higher standard of living than a peasant and does much less work, for the king sits at the pinnacle of a hierarchy of non-optional transfers of resources. Every major head of state is at least moderately villainous (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&list=LL2f6ZjcH7t_nJsJ-fl2KPUw&index=846), by your both your stated standards and others. And rulers who do put their own lives and/or their own power at risk tend to be outlasted by those who make other sacrifices.

Good characters don't just idly tolerate the oppression of the powerless. They can be cautious about how they attempt to pursue change, but even Lawful Good characters seek to stop systemic unfairness; they just prefer to try to change the system from within, rather than to try to replace it. And to the extent that large-scale villains usually are attempting to fix problems, problem-reduction doubles as villainy-prevention via decrease in potential causes for villainy.

You can have an entire utopian world threatened with conquest by a mustache-twirling villain who wants to bring everything under his personal rule just because he's egotistical, but that's a somewhat contrived scenario. Large-scale evil isn't absent from a realistic world until it suddenly springs up. The greatest evils, in terms of sheer scale, are those permitted or even encouraged by those in power. The greatest evils are normal and expected because they've persisted for generations. The greatest evils are accepted, but shouldn't be.

It's odd that you relate your distaste for plotting slightly with Lawful alignment in your OP. Aren't hierarchies, control, and planning trappings of Law, while spontaneity and flexibility are more associated with Chaos? But, upon reflection, I suppose that plotting is more of a thing for those who make the rules, and want others to follow them. Those in a position to influence standards of honor probably prefer that not many others seek power, and that "the virtuous" not be too hesitant to sacrifice themselves "for the good of society".


Players opted in to playing a particular game. It might be D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or whatever - but given it was opted into, there is a reasonable expectation that time at the table will be spend using some aspects of the game system opted into. It isn't wrong to plan but time spent on this is taking up time that could be spent rolling dice and adventuring.
But there is another side of the metagaming coin. If players are roleplaying characters who are supposed to care about the stakes of what's going to happen (if only because they value their own lives), part of that is having those characters try their best to avoid unnecessary risks. A player might even want a combat encounter but feel obligated to try to avoid it because making in-character choices is part of playing a roleplaying game too.

You can't use the social contract to resolve a conflict when that conflict lies within the social contract.


That's true, though I'd say it's important for a GM that plays like that to do it fairly. If the bad guy can attack the party before they're ready, the party should also be able to attack the bad guy before he's ready.
I'm reminded of a scene from Critical Role. The party recently arrived in a city under the control of a pair of major villains, where they were met with a deliberate sign that their arrival there was expected. Having sneaked into the house of one of the villains' underlings, their advance scout secretly listens in on a conversation in which someone is telling someone else that they need to get things in order soon, because "guests" will likely be arriving shortly and they don't want to be unprepared. Cue laughter from players.

As I recall, that arc was also the one where the party developed the strategy of taking out most of the BBEG's underlings and then heading for the BBEG, hoping to gain the advantage of surprise by attacking before eliminating all of the underlings first, as one would be inclined to expect.

(This is also the series that gave us "At dawn, we plan.")

King of Nowhere
2020-11-14, 10:28 AM
On the contrary it’s plenty fun for players to get into planning. It’s only dull when the planning itself is dull or stagnant. Back and forth player discussions are very similar to RP (it might even be RP!)

You get high player activity and involvement with a lot of shared spotlight time. These players care enough about the game and/or setting that they’re thinking rather than begging to be led by the nose.

+1 on that. if my players are discussing their moves within my world geopolitics, and how to influence the various factions within, if they talk about the king of the neutral power and how to persuade him to support them instead of the villain like he was a real person, it means they are engaged within my world. there are few satisfactions greater than seeing your players care.




You can have an entire utopian world threatened with conquest by a mustache-twirling villain who wants to bring everything under his personal rule just because he's egotistical, but that's a somewhat contrived scenario. Large-scale evil isn't absent from a realistic world until it suddenly springs up. The greatest evils, in terms of sheer scale, are those permitted or even encouraged by those in power. The greatest evils are normal and expected because they've persisted for generations. The greatest evils are accepted, but shouldn't be.

on the other hand, it's quite hard to build a d&d adventure out of stopping the megacorporation from buying the city park and build a shopping mall on it. you can't exactly attack on sight the employees of the megacorporation that are trying to do their job cutting trees. nor can you kill the manager for it
the main reason to have mustache-twirling villains is to have somebody who's acceptable to attack on sight

Devils_Advocate
2020-11-14, 06:47 PM
If the worst thing happening in a world is a park being replaced by a mall, that world is unrealistically utopian already. But that's only unrealistic in the sense of differing from reality, and that applies to all fantasy worlds regardless. It's when a fictional world goes from having a new mall as its worst problem to facing a massive global threat, and then back, with nothing in between, that my ability to take the setting seriously begins to suffer severe damage. In particular, it seems unlikely that fighting a massive global threat created no problems above mall scale that persist even after the global level threat has been overcome.

The main characters engaging in violence isn't a necessary part of every session of Dungeons & Dragons. It is possible to have a brief story arc without combat. But even if the players are discontent to go several hours without any homicide, that doesn't mean that their characters have to feel the same way. "I expose the corrupt mayor using the evidence we uncovered" could itself be a downtime thing. And if the player characters couldn't deal with that mayor before because they were too busy saving the world, but they can now because the world has been successfully saved, it's likely epilogue material.

Spinning every enemy of a group as needing to be killed doesn't really sell that group as heroic. For starters, that sounds suspiciously like the biased perspective of a bunch of murder-happy murderhobos who decide that anyone who stands in their way for any reason needs killin'. Certainly if some folks have killed every one of several enemies they've dealt with, I'd expect them to kill any enemy they make in the future based on their track record. After all, it's what they've done with all of their foes so far.

But let's suppose that some villain is clearly established as someone who nearly everyone agrees needs to be destroyed. That really limits what a character pursuing said villain's destruction tells you about that character. The character could be a benevolent altruist taking on great personal risk in order to protect others, but could also be a hateful mass murderer willing to risk death for the sake of revenge.

We can look at how characters oppose a villain or some other threat, but the more that that threat is so bad that it must be stopped no matter the cost, the more irresponsible it becomes to choose an approach based on anything other than likelihood of success. If you should be wiling to sacrifice your own life to save everyone else's because millions of lives are so much more valuable than one life, then you should be willing to sacrifice someone else's life to save everyone else's for the same reason.

But I think that my main issue can be summarized thus: Altruism isn't a substitute for general benevolence. If a valiant knight faces great peril to slay the great dragon and then goes back to living in comfort at peasants' expense, I have to wonder how much he was concerned with protecting those peasants as anything but a means to an end. If, after a war, a celebrated veteran retires to start a bar and ignores that police officers are allowed to murder people in his country, I have to wonder who he was concerned with protecting through his service. Such valorous individuals may put themselves at risk to confront threats to their own social classes, but they seem untroubled at best by the plight of others in their homelands, never mind humanity at large.

And general kindness does not only concern itself with one's own species! A substantial portion if not the majority of evil perpetrated by humanity on Earth right now involves the treatment of non-humans as means to ends without regard for their well-being.

To borrow from Frank Trollman, playing a genuinely Good character means playing someone who is probably a much better person than you personally are. ("You probably aren't Evil, but seriously: get over yourself.") Perhaps the notion of a hero as someone willing to take on personal risk to defend the status quo appeals because it is easy to imagine oneself in that role. In many cases, that image of oneself may even be accurate! But caring about the welfare of everyone, caring about suffering and oppression of all sorts, demands much more than that. It demands being willing to give up the status quo, to fight even wrongs that enable the lifestyle to which one has become accustomed. Whereas a stalwart defender of the status quo is committed to perpetuating those wrongs.

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
―― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Mechalich
2020-11-14, 07:15 PM
If the worst thing happening in a world is a park being replaced by a mall, that world is unrealistically utopian already. But that's only unrealistic in the sense of differing from reality, and that applies to all fantasy worlds regardless. It's when a fictional world goes from having a new mall as its worst problem to facing a massive global threat, and then back, with nothing in between, that my ability to take the setting seriously begins to suffer severe damage. In particular, it seems unlikely that fighting a massive global threat created no problems above mall scale that persist even after the global level threat has been overcome.

The main characters engaging in violence isn't a necessary part of every session of Dungeons & Dragons. It is possible to have a brief story arc without combat. But even if the players are discontent to go several hours without any homicide, that doesn't mean that their characters have to feel the same way. "I expose the corrupt mayor using the evidence we uncovered" could itself be a downtime thing. And if the player characters couldn't deal with that mayor before because they were too busy saving the world, but they can now because the world has been successfully saved, it's likely epilogue material.

Spinning every enemy of a group as needing to be killed doesn't really sell that group as heroic. For starters, that sounds suspiciously like the biased perspective of a bunch of murder-happy murderhobos who decide that anyone who stands in their way for any reason needs killin'. Certainly if some folks have killed every one of several enemies they've dealt with, I'd expect them to kill any enemy they make in the future based on their track record. After all, it's what they've done with all of their foes so far.

But let's suppose that some villain is clearly established as someone who nearly everyone agrees needs to be destroyed. That really limits what a character pursuing said villain's destruction tells you about that character. The character could be a benevolent altruist taking on great personal risk in order to protect others, but could also be a hateful mass murderer willing to risk death for the sake of revenge.

We can look at how characters oppose a villain or some other threat, but the more that that threat is so bad that it must be stopped no matter the cost, the more irresponsible it becomes to choose an approach based on anything other than likelihood of success. If you should be wiling to sacrifice your own life to save everyone else's because millions of lives are so much more valuable than one life, then you should be willing to sacrifice someone else's life to save everyone else's for the same reason.

But I think that my main issue can be summarized thus: Altruism isn't a substitute for general benevolence. If a valiant knight faces great peril to slay the great dragon and then goes back to living in comfort at peasants' expense, I have to wonder how much he was concerned with protecting those peasants as anything but a means to an end. If, after a war, a celebrated veteran retires to start a bar and ignores that police officers are allowed to murder people in his country, I have to wonder who he was concerned with protecting through his service. Such valorous individuals may put themselves at risk to confront threats to their own social classes, but they seem untroubled at best by the plight of others in their homelands, never mind humanity at large.

And general kindness does not only concern itself with one's own species! A substantial portion if not the majority of evil perpetrated by humanity on Earth right now involves the treatment of non-humans as means to ends without regard for their well-being.

To borrow from Frank Trollman, playing a genuinely Good character means playing someone who is probably a much better person than you personally are. ("You probably aren't Evil, but seriously: get over yourself.") Perhaps the notion of a hero as someone willing to take on personal risk to defend the status quo appeals because it is easy to imagine oneself in that role. In many cases, that image of oneself may even be accurate! But caring about the welfare of everyone, caring about suffering and oppression of all sorts, demands much more than that. It demands being willing to give up the status quo, to fight even wrongs that enable the lifestyle to which one has become accustomed. Whereas a stalwart defender of the status quo is committed to perpetuating those wrongs.

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
―― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Um...okay, maybe relax a little regarding the structure and function of escapist speculative fiction.

I mean, yes, fantasy, as a genre, tends to be highly invested in protecting the extant status quo or at least offering a more ethically appealing version of the same system without making any systemic change by installing a 'good king' or something similar. It is deliberately simplified, and this is a huge part of its appeal. Many TTRPs (and cRPGs) are simplified even further, and present serious threats to society as a series of violent encounters to be defeated (tactical RPGs like Fire Emblem do this in a shockingly literal fashion). If you object to this element of genre structure then play something else, criticizing a genre for behaving how it is designed to operate because you object to aspects of that design is totally orthogonal to a discussion of how internal elements of said design should be structured and manipulated within the context of the genre. Interrupting a discussion about fantasy simply to say 'fantasy is dumb' isn't helpful.

There are tabletop RPGs that are intended to highlight aspects of cultural, environmental, and public policy struggles, usually in a modern context. Mage: the Ascension is such a game. However, the mechanical framework used by such games generally fails to engage with this in a functional manner (the oWoD still had more actual rules about how to run combat than anything else), in part because modeling social interaction mechanically is incredibly difficult and no RPG has developed a good system for complex social interactions yet. That's why is you run a MtA game where the goal of the characters is something like 'Save the Amazon Rainforest' it still ends up being about blowing up Pentex factories and slaughtering mutagenic abominations rather than engaging in complex multiple stakeholder political discussions simply because RPGs are good at running the former and terrible at running the latter.

Most people who write fantasy are not particularly sanguine about the often rather crapsack nature of the pre-industrial worlds they've chosen to represent (though some people, like Joe Abercrombie, take it beyond the grimdark event horizon), but even if the world isn't all that great of a place for most of its residents it is usually trivially easy to conjure up some sort of horrific threat that would make it measurable worse if not stopped. And that's pretty much how melodrama has always worked, going back to the Greeks.