My discomfort with Thinker player archetypes--villains have plots, not heroes

[PhoenixPhyre]

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]

You prefer action heroes. Many players don't. I think there's really not much more to it than that.

[OldTrees1]

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]

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]

It's funny, you've very accurately laid out why I don't like the classic hero/villain tropes that much.

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]

It's funny, you've very accurately laid out why I don't like the classic hero/villain tropes that much.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.