[Game Theory] Less Realism, Less Party Tension

[Dust]

As the title of this thread explicitly states, I have come to a conclusion I'd like to share with everyone. It is, simply put, this;

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

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

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

• The Tony Montana Effect
  In real life, we understand how society is structured and that achievers are rarely altruistic.
  Get the money, get the power, be successful - that's the formula we've been taught time and time again.
  In gaming, the further we deviate from the formulas we understand work in real life, the greater the likelihood our characters will value other things. It doesn't take much, mind you - most players don't show up to a game of Serenity, looking to avoid taking risks and haul farm equipment from planet to planet. But all the GMs who complain that 'their characters aren't heroic' and can't understand why? It's because we say 'be heroic' and offer incentive...but the game is so rooted in the rules we understand work in real life, the words fall flat since they're so contrary to what we've been taught.
  D&D is a prime example. Collect money for equipment. Magic items equal power. Power equals success. And if anyone opposes you...well, shut them down in whatever way you see fit.
  If you introduce a game system where survival has long and convoluted rules and is a constant, looming threat, there's good odds you'll wind up with a few characters deep into moral grey territory. If, on the other hand, you present a system where the PCs are astral travellers who cannot actually murder someone else and take their stuff, the odds of you winding up with Murderman are far reduced.
  
  
• The Rousseau Effect
  Whether or not you believe that mankind is inherently evil, it's hard to disagree that in games with a high emphasis on creating realistic characters are more likely to breed archetypes that walk a grey moral line. Cynics, corrupt officials, sexists, racists, money-hungry bastards and all shapes and sizes of jerkhole; the real world is full of 'em, and so, too, are games that strive to emulate the real world.
  Let's take Star Wars and Firefly/Serenity. In one we have Han Solo, in the other, Jayne Cobb. They're both womanizing, self-obsessed creeps in their respective mediums - however, Star Wars is set in a universe where bounty hunters fly around on jet packs, robots can disable planet-sized space stations, and Jabba the Hutt could theoretically learn to use The Force. Serenity was set in a Wild West 'verse, and folks there knew the rules - sleep with a gun under your pillow and always demand money up front.
  You might argue that this is a stylistic choice, or simply a difference in tone between the two films, but I'd disagree with you when it comes to a tabletop comparison. If you want proof, sit down with your friends and announce you'll be running a deadly, grim and gritty horror game, and ask them to make two different characters, one with each system - Serenity and Star Wars. I guarantee you that the system that uses the more realistic rules will produce more vicious characters.
  
  
• The Optimus Prime Effect
  When many people sit down and create a character, they focus on the mechanics side of things before the roleplaying side. I'm not saying this is good, merely that it remains a fact and there's probably one or two such individuals in your gaming group. In systems where you can be overwhelmed with build options, such as a Superhero game, these players are more likely to stumble upon something they want to imagine their character being able to do that is cool. This has two benefits. Firstly, you're more likely to get a character that focuses initially on a THING instead of a personality archetype, which helps players who consistently lean towards playing scumbags to get out of that rut.
  Secondly, and this is the weird one, our brains are wired in such a way that we come to associate words with one another at a subconscious level. For almost everyone, we associate 'cool' with positive, awesome and unlikely things such as kicking the head off a robot shark, and less so with betraying a close friends. Even inherently unsavoury people follow this mindset. Cool is putting on shades and walking slowly away from an explosion (even though we always groan upon seeing this tired cliché, there's a reason it's still so prevalent), or fighting while dangling from a helicopter.
  So when we're presented with a system where we CAN engage in chopper-fisticuffs and step away from the restrictive boundaries of real life, we're more likely to build a character CAPABLE of such things. And ultimately, since we're hardwired to associate 'cool' with 'good,' our characters tend to be braver and better the more they can kick reality to the curb.
  Remember Neo from the Matrix? A prime example of what I'm talking about here - Thomas Anderson was a cog in the machine of society, criminal record, problems with authority, and more importantly, terrified of the garbage that was happening to him. A realistic character in a realistic setting, screaming and fighting and distrustful. As soon as he started to learn kung-fu and leap tall buildings, the hangups of humanity started to fade as well.
  You might contemplate a character who is dark and brooding, prone to taking advantage of other people or perhaps quick to anger, and suffers from a painful past. In a realistic setting, in a realistic system, the character will be prone to falling to their darker side, and often lash out at other people.
  But take that same character and give them the ability to breath in space, and give them bonus dice for saying "I'm Batman" once per game session, and all of a sudden things become less dark and more lighthearted. We didn't change the character's mood or personality, merely their capabilities and how stuff works.
  
  
• The Kamina Effect
  And lastly, the big one. I've talked a lot about how realistic rules produce morally-ambiguous characters, and bad dudes tend to get along less often than good dudes, but there's more to it than that. As we all know, the biggest defining characteristic in whether or not a group of PCs will see eye-to-eye on things....boils down to mutual respect.
  Even the most polar opposite of characters - the Paladin and the Necromancer, let's say - can find ways to work together if the mutual-respect criteria is met. They may not like the methods of the other, but they can't deny the other has situations where they shine.
  And just like before, the more out there the system, the more CRAZINESS you can pull off within the confines of the rules, the more likely you are to garner some respect from your allies.
  It's hard to respect Tim the Accountant, or even Joel the Part-Time Death Star Station Mechanic. But as soon as Tim the Accountant catches a wrench in his teeth, he's stepped away from the mundane and it becomes easier to see him as more than just another class-and-race-combination, easily-replicable PC. He caught a wrench in his teeth, man - what else can he do? With interest comes communication, with communication comes respect.
  
  Kick out logic and do the impossible. Beat the unbeatable. It's easier to respect a PC who defies reality as we know it - even if the rest of the party can, too - than one who suffers from familiar failings and struggles with mundane tasks instead of superhuman ones.

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

Thanks for reading.

[Tyndmyr]

You...have an amazingly solid point. I'm now somehow surprised that I've never noticed this before.

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

[Eldan]

Actually...

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

[The Big Dice]

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

[Sipex]

I don't have a lot of experience with PbP games, especially of various systems but I can see your point. It will be interesting to watch this thread.

[Tyndmyr]

Some people like to play morally ambiguous and downright reprehensible people*, the system isn't going to change that.
*Not that there is anything wrong with that in the right player group

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

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

Grittier/= realistic. Just because everyone has permastubble and pouches, lots of pouches, doesn't make things realistic.
And did you not get the part about D&D? Intraparty conflcit i.e. Party Tension. Examples, Paladin and Thief. His class was Rogue, but by golly, he was a Thief. He may have rarely stole from the party, but stealing from temples of the god the Paladin worshipped certainly caused Party Tension.
LN Ranger all in favour of public executions to maintain order verses, pretty much everyone else actually, plus additional conflict with the more chaotic members of the party over looting, plus the Rangers disavowal of magic.

[Oracle_Hunter]

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

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

To the contrary - I've found intraparty conflicts arise from simple conflicts in character goals. Of course, people who have OOC conflicts can carry those into games as well but I typically game with friends and still see plenty of intraparty conflict.

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

Personally, I've found intraparty conflict to arise from the following sources:

Spoiler

Show

(1) Conflicts of Play Style - Players who like to constantly be doing things will conflict with Players who prefer to think things over first. Similarly, Players who prefer combat will conflict with Players who like talking everything to death.

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

(3) Problem Players - Some Players just breed conflict. It could be that they hold grudges from OOC and transfer it in-game. Or they might enjoy playing anti-social or "useless" characters that end up getting the party in trouble for no reason and generally making the game less fun for everyone.

Broad categories, yes, but they cover most of the common situations and suggest solutions. Games themselves can, of course, create intraparty conflict by design - but beyond a certain point rules alone lose their effectiveness on managing such conflicts.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, there are other sources of conflict than direct pvp actions, sure...but pvp is certainly one source. Decreasing that is one way to decrease party tensions.

[Pentachoron]

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

[GolemsVoice]

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

Actually, from a (mathematical) game-theoretic standpoint there may be something to this.

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

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

[Eldan]

To use the same quote Golem's Voice used:

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

Oh, there are other sources of conflict than direct pvp actions, sure...but pvp is certainly one source. Decreasing that is one way to decrease party tensions.

That's rather a tautology isn't it? Unless the game explicitly spells out, "this can't be used on your fellow players", the only rule in Core 3.X D&D I can think of like that is some of the Social Skills, everything that is PvE is also potentially PvP. If someone is going after a fellow player character, you already HAVE Conflict with a capital C.

[kyoryu]

To use the same quote Golem's Voice used:



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

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

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

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

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

[Tyndmyr]

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

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

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

[Eldan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyndmyr]

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

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

[Tavar]

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

[Eldan]

Not necessarily.

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

[Tyndmyr]

Not necessarily.

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

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

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

OK, Paranoia then.

[Eldan]

Entirely true. It is, however, both gritty and unrealistic.

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

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

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

[Darth Stabber]

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

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

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

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

[Tyndmyr]

OK, Paranoia then.

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

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

[Yukitsu]

To use the same quote Golem's Voice used:



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

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

[Totally Guy]

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

[Veyr]

I found your argument compelling and your writing enjoyable, personally. I think people have fair points regarding its weaknesses, perhaps, but nonetheless I think this is a very good thought that people should read.