Character Flaws: Crunch vs. Fluff

[Anonymouswizard]

I am unable to find any results for "Agony Munchkin". Any other names it might have gone by?

Or a detailed explanation ;)

Max_Killjoy explained the designer's views pretty well. Because the game encouraged rewarding roleplaying, with I believe the horrendous idea of individual RPXP, this lead to a certain type of player.

So roleplaying gets you the Bennies. The game designers say that the right way to lay is Tortured Soul. Therefore the way to get ALL THE BENNIES is to spend as much game time as possible bemoaning your existence and this accursed beast you've become forever to walk untouched by the sun. Bonus points if you take up other player's screen time with your agony.

Hence Agony Munchy. I don't know if it's a normal VtM term, but I thought it got the point across.

I think the designers actually wanted you to mix the bemoaning with firebombing Elysium to spite Vampire Dad. But I was like ten when Masquerade died, my experience is secondhand.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max_Killjoy explained the designer's views pretty well. Because the game encouraged rewarding roleplaying, with I believe the horrendous idea of individual RPXP, this lead to a certain type of player.

So roleplaying gets you the Bennies. The game designers say that the right way to lay is Tortured Soul. Therefore the way to get ALL THE BENNIES is to spend as much game time as possible bemoaning your existence and this accursed beast you've become forever to walk untouched by the sun. Bonus points if you take up other player's screen time with your agony.

Hence Agony Munchy. I don't know if it's a normal VtM term, but I thought it got the point across.

I think the designers actually wanted you to mix the bemoaning with firebombing Elysium to spite Vampire Dad. But I was like ten when Masquerade died, my experience is secondhand.

There was definitely an element of that as well, there was a strong punk-anarchy-nihilism vibe particularly from some of the more edgelordy authors, and the Anarchs and Sabbat kept becoming a bigger and bigger deal.

[Quertus]

*groan*

Since this apparently needs to be done in order for you to stop being sidetracked by examples:

Your argument that Starlord and Drax obviously had an idiot ball is itself hindsight bias, based on knowing how the entire movie turned out and how previous movies with the same tropes turned out.

No.

It's not.

Contacting Ronin and giving away the location of the group and the stone was obviously a betrayal and obviously stupid.

Starlord hitting Thanos in that situation was obviously sabotaging the plan that had almost worked.

No hindsight required, anyone watching either film immediately knew the action was going to make things far worse. And that's the sort of situation we're talking about, where it's obvious to everyone, including the player of the Drax or Starlord character, that this is a decision that will screw over everyone else, and they do it anyway, "because drama".

I'm with Max on this one.

I've gamed with some dumb people in my time, but I cannot imagine a player declaring the actions that Drax or Starlord took, and convincing the group that they simply didn't realize that they are betraying the party and/or being monumentally stupid. I just don't know anyone dumb enough that that statement would be believable.

In fact, in the case of Starlord, any action not actively helping the party is kinda sus. Even Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who might well feel completely out of their element in such a scenario, would still at least watch the skies and/or set up Teleportation traps to prevent surprise attacks from reinforcements. Now, hindsight bias may say that such actions aren't actually useful, but that's *still* better than Starlord.

This is the kind of action I can *only* imagine happening in a game where the system is rewarding them for holding the idiot ball, the GM is offering them a 'compel', etc - not something any reasonable player would defend as anything other than intentionally hurting the party.

So what do you do when a player changes how they apply the heuristic based on after-the-fact knowledge? Because that's what I'm asking about.

Yes yes, you weren't talking managing hindsight bias. I am, because put together, your gaming preferences suggest an environment where it would come up.

If I recognized it, and cared? I'd call them out on it.

But, more likely, IME, supposed "hindsight bias" is actually a red herring for what's really going on with the group social dynamic, and *that's* what I would be focusing on.

(All of these are primarily directed at Quertus.)

On Quertus: I remember Quertus talking about the inspiration for Quertus. And as I recall one of the primary inspirations was being unable to make tactical decisions. And that is the primary mistake Drax made, what if he had defeated Ronin like he assumed he would? Has Quertus ever caused trouble over a tactical error?

Caused trouble? Interesting turn of phrase.

Quertus has been suboptimal because he is tactically inept. Quertus has been The Load because he is tactically inept (and for other reasons - his total contribution over ~10 levels outside "transportation" could have been replaced with a bag of flour). But, as far as my senile and biased mind can remember and evaluate, he has never been actively detrimental / a net negative.

More of an issue IMO is that Quertus is an academic, not an adventurer. He focuses on learning about the monsters more than on actually defeating them. Still, he'll only take lesser monsters (like Merilith or Balor), that he knows his safeguards are sufficient to allow him to safely hold for experimentation and dissection. He won't try to keep BBEG level foes like Atropos or Phyrexia around for study (despite how much he could learn).

That said, I would be perfectly willing to roleplay him as a net negative. For example, suppose I recognized that the game had a "modern" theme, and knew that those objects could be fuel barrels, I would not let that affect my RP of Quertus, and still have him Fireball the enemies hiding behind the barrels. (Or, you know, would have, in the past, back when Quertus didn't have experience with modern worlds / back before he became more likely than me to notice such details).

(As to, "what if it worked?", dumb plans do sometimes work. That doesn't make them less dumb, and certainly not less of a betrayal.)

On Execution: Why murder our go to solution here? What about "holding them back" or something like that.

Excellent question.

Of course those other options are… preferred solutions. But I prefer groups whose members wouldn't bat an eye at the notion of murdering their own character to preserve the fun of the game.

On Town Counsel: You would have to ask Vahnavoi for who the town counsel was supposed to represent, if anyone, originally but I know in my post I was treating them as a stand-in for anyone, real or fictional (player or character), who can make mistakes. I'm just to assume you would want to adjust your answer based on that.

I prefer realities where… nah, not going there

I don't care what it's *supposed to be* a stand-in for - either my answer applies, or its not a very good stand-in. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And only slightly less well known is this: never mix fantasy and reality when death is on the line!

Further, dealing with Drax doesn't get to the heart of the issue: the player Dave.

Dave who made Drax. Dave who decided this is how Drax behaves. Dave who continued to make this choices until it got so bad that the DM had to step in and stop this mess because Drax wasn't responding to the other characters pleas to end his stupidity, nor was Dave listening to the other players.

Deal with Dave, and Drax will be dealt with. Deal only with Drax and Dave can simply go make Starlord instead.

Although this is often good advice, in this particular case, Dave is the one (or one of the ones) trying to deal with Drax.

[icefractal]

Thing is, holding the idiot ball is only sabotaging the party if the opposition the party faces is impartial / deterministic.

Meaning that when the party manages to avoid Ronin, the GM is just like "welp, you get the stone and proceed on without difficulty" rather than "Ronin found you, for a different reason" or "You run into this other foe, not Ronin but about equally strong".

And while I enjoy that style (world over story), IME it's not even close to the majority of tables out there. If the opposition is indeterminate and will adapt to present the desired degree of challenge, then having your character's flaws cause trouble is really just reflavoring the same amount of opposition / obstacles.

Example: Champions -
In every Champions campaign I've played, Hunted was basically a free complication, at least at the base level. Because in most superhero genres, the heroes are mainly reactive and someone is going to show up and start trouble regardless. And (again, in the games I've played) the amount of trouble was "as much as will be entertaining to play through", it wasn't based on, like, a simulation of how much resources various villain groups had. Therefore Hunted just means that sometimes the foes who will show up are the particular foes that have a grudge against you.

[Max_Killjoy]

Thing is, holding the idiot ball is only sabotaging the party if the opposition the party faces is impartial / deterministic.

Meaning that when the party manages to avoid Ronin, the GM is just like "welp, you get the stone and proceed on without difficulty" rather than "Ronin found you, for a different reason" or "You run into this other foe, not Ronin but about equally strong".

And while I enjoy that style (world over story), IME it's not even close to the majority of tables out there. If the opposition is indeterminate and will adapt to present the desired degree of challenge, then having your character's flaws cause trouble is really just reflavoring the same amount of opposition / obstacles.

Example: Champions -
In every Champions campaign I've played, Hunted was basically a free complication, at least at the base level. Because in most superhero genres, the heroes are mainly reactive and someone is going to show up and start trouble regardless. And (again, in the games I've played) the amount of trouble was "as much as will be entertaining to play through", it wasn't based on like, a simulation of how much resources various villain groups had. Therefore Hunted just means that sometimes the foes who will show up are the particular foes that have a grudge against you.

IME, and especially when I'm running, if the players do a good job avoiding giving away their position, the "Ronin" character doesn't automatically track them down "for reasons".

Few things will ruin my enjoyment of a campaign faster than the realization that our decisions and actions and such don't really have any affect on what happens next.

[Satinavian]

Agree with Max_Killjoy

Also i avoid the superhero genre in RPGs because way too many genre conventions rely on shutting down your brain.

[Anonymouswizard]

Agree with Max_Killjoy

Also i avoid the superhero genre in RPGs because way too many genre conventions rely on shutting down your brain.

It's the same reason horror struggles, nobody in a game wanders off to get picked off by the killer. I find that most people are more willing to except it with superheroes than with horror, but it's still not my favourite genre.

Now we can solve this, partially by finding examples of the genre that work better as games. So for horror you probably want to lean more towards Aliens than Alien. I'm sure we can find relatively influential superhero series that find some method other than the idiot ball. Or just go the Wild Talents route of making holding the idiot ball incredibly dangerous and work out how that changes the stories.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to avoid the whole Guardians of the Galaxy thing, because I haven't watched it.

I'm someone for whom "being smart" and "not doing stupid things" is (theoretically) in character. PhD in hard sciences etc. Yet, if you watched a movie of my life, it would be blatantly obvious that there were lots of times I was "holding the idiot ball." Doing things that I knew even then were stupid and counterproductive. Because other facets of my personality and experience made them more feasible than the "smart" thing. Or because I just didn't think about it and reacted instead of acting deliberately.

This experience has led me to believe that some accusations of "holding the idiot ball" (in the sense of "acting dumb against character for narrative sake") are overblown. And that everyone, everywhere, makes dumb decisions that they knew (or should have known) were dumb, not even dealing with retrospective clarity here. So if there's a character who never does anything dumb, that's probably a sign of being a Mary Sue/Marty Stu. Or at least a super flat character without any depth. You can do dumb things without being a betrayer, in character or not.

Tropes are like software design patterns--they're names for behavioral patterns that are reflections of things we see. In fiction, they get drawn more black-line than in real life, because fiction is fiction. Tropes are not bad. A game without tropes would be much harder to comprehend, since tropes are one major way people easily assimilate new situations. And subverting/inverting tropes is still using them.

That said, chasing tropes is like insisting that you insert software design patterns everywhere. They'll come up when they come up. No need to force them.

To be honest, most of the times a player has said something like "this is a really dumb move, but I got to do it," it's really not been that dumb of a thing to do. It's something totally in character and usually either the right thing or at least a neutral thing to do. Bravery and curiosity are not dumb things.

Playing the super-cautious, super-paranoid person gets boring for everyone, at least in my experience. Games that incentivise spending all the time planning so that the actual execution is trivial are, to me, unplayable. I want games that encourage acting. Do something now, let the "narrative"[1] move along. More smaller actions, not one big "solve everything" action. But that's personal preference.

[1] in the most broad "the set of things that happen" sense.

[Telok]

To be honest, most of the times a player has said something like "this is a really dumb move, but I got to do it," it's really not been that dumb of a thing to do. It's something totally in character and usually either the right thing or at least a neutral thing to do. Bravery and curiosity are not dumb things.

Being someone who has literally heard "This fight is easy so I'm going to pull in the next one." or variations, at the table during D&D fights that saw multiple characters on the verge of going down before the words were uttered... I'm not as forgiving or as willing to assume "in character" from any player who hasn't previously demonstrated significant roleplay. And the people who do roleplay don't seem to be the ones pulling the really dumb moves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being someone who has literally heard "This fight is easy so I'm going to pull in the next one." or variations, at the table during D&D fights that saw multiple characters on the verge of going down before the words were uttered... I'm not as forgiving or as willing to assume "in character" from any player who hasn't previously demonstrated significant roleplay. And the people who do roleplay don't seem to be the ones pulling the really dumb moves.

That last sentence militates against the opposition to playing your flaws, at least in my mind. If most of the really dumb moves are by people thinking OOC about mechanical things, then the trope-led "bad behavior" isn't as much of an issue as it's being made out to be.

Having said that, I don't like having to be in an author stance as a player. So many of the heavily "narrative-focused" games leave me cold. But that's for a separate reason.

[Talakeal]

@Quertus:

I have to say, the whole idea of executing characters for idiotic decisions sounds like one of the most dysfunctional gaming groups I have ever heard of, and coming from me that is saying something!

It sounds especially weird coming from you, the guy who talks about the virtues of playing potted plants and tactically inept wizards, and who is, in the other thread, trying to coach me about running a low stress game (I have a hard time thinking of a more stressful situation than one where every IC decision could be a capitol offense!).

Honestly, the whole thing seems like a very convoluted and passive aggressive way to tell people that they aren't allowed to play with you unless they share your exact same gaming preferences.


But, let me say quite a few things in no particular order:

First, you say "bad behavior". Unless you are actually out to ruin the other player's good times (what would be termed "griefing" in a video game) I don't really think you can take objectively bad actions. Instead, what I think you are referring to are actions which fall into one of two categories, neither of which are bad on their own:

The first is putting the needs of the individual (either in or out of character) above those of the group.

The second is having a conflict between the two sides of the TTRPG hobby; the tactical war-game side and the role-playing side. In the first case you are trying to work together to overcome an obstacle, and in the second you are trying to explore how a given character would react in a given situation. IMO the entire idea behind flaws is to smooth over the conflict between these two modes of play, neither one of which are "Bad behavior" on their own.

Now, obviously, these can cause problems if taken to the extreme, but in normal play you need to balance them, and not everybody has the same balance point.


PVP is a spectrum, and its not something with a hard line. You can commit PVP through action or through inaction, and it can be direct or indirect. Lot's of people consider playing a sub-optimal characters to be a form of PVP because it indirectly puts the other characters in harm's way by reducing ability to save them. In my last game, for example, I had to players actually come to blows in the middle of a dungeon due to an IC argument, and neither player was upset by it (although a third player was, because their injuries suffered during the battle led to the parties defeat at the hands of the villain later in the session). Likewise, I have had a player consider giving NPCs a "gratuity" on top of a negotiated fee to be PvP as it was wasteful of party funds and did lead to bad blood between the players. And, as someone else mentioned in a previous thread, who is the one committing PvP if player A is about to chop up player B's family with his axe and player B sunders the axe?


Further, executing your allies isn't ethical or logical in most situations, either in or out of character.

Obviously, negligence is not a capitol offense in most modern moral or legal systems. Executing an ally is likely to be likewise evil and or illegal in whatever setting the game takes place in, and executing an ally who is nominally highly skilled and highly loyal while in a dangerous world is pretty stupid, and could easily lead to everyone getting into far more trouble than the initial "idiot ball" offense.

And then OOC, there are going to be bad feelings all around. You are almost certain to lose a player or players over it, although which one(s) probably depends on who the DM and the person hosting the game side with. There is a good chance that very hurtful things will be said, and you may well end friendships over it. There is also a non-zero chance of property damage or physical violence; I am not saying that getting into a fist fight over a game is ever appropriate, but I am saying that I have seen people beaten up over far less.


Also, you use the term idiot ball, but I really don't think that is appropriate either. An "idiot ball" moment is acting out of character for the sake of the plot; a "just playing my character" moment is actually the complete opposite of that, its refusing to act out of character for the sake of the game.


Now, the Guardians of the Galaxy is a story about a bunch of emotionally damaged outlaws forced to work together by circumstance. The whole thing is a metaphor for dysfunctional families, and is played up for both drama and comedy. Drax is stupid, suicidal, and obsessed with revenge. It makes perfect sense for his character to challenge Ronan without his allies consent (and its early enough in the movie that they aren't really even allies yet, they just have a temporary cease-fire for conveniance). Likewise, Star Lord is immature and overly emotional, it makes perfect sense to me that he would lash out violently without thinking of the consequences when finding out the woman he loved was murdered. To use a real life analogy, when my brother found out his GF was cheating on him, he punched his steering wheel hard enough that he broke both the wheel and his hand; and he is far more mature and less emotional than Starlord is.

The Guardians are not the Avengers or the Justice League. The whole premise is that they are a group of emotionally and morally compromised misfits having wacky adventures, if that is not what you are signing up for, don't play a game like guardians of the galaxy, make it clear upfront what sort of characters are appropriate. Ironically, by threatening death for stepping out of line, all you have done is turn the Guardians of the Galaxy into the Suicide Squad; essentially the same thing but only working together because of the thread of execution rather than any true sense of loyalty.


Now, I am really, really, curious about how you would handle the two following situations:

1: The PCs go to execute one of their own for reckless behavior, and he fights back and ends up defeating the rest of the party and is now the last man standing.
2: A PLAYER makes a stupid decision OOC, that ends up with their character doing something that is IC reckless and worthy of execution.

[Cluedrew]

In a good group, Drax's player declares him dead rather than initiate PvP by holding the idiot ball. [...] I'm not sure why everyone being on the same team, and working together to make a good game, should be such a strange concept.

The fact I recognise that allies who will stick together shoulder-to-shoulder through thick and thin is a valid mode of play doesn't mean its the only one. I've played in several campaigns where the PCs did try to kill each other, let alone make things generally worse for the party. Who says PCvPC is against the social contract?

And honestly, have you watched the Guardians of the Galaxy there is a lot of this. Because the Guardians are... a barely functional group of sort-of-heroes. Gamora gets them arrested, Groot sounds the alarm early, Rocket sends Peter/Starlord on a wild goose chase, Drax has to be talked out of being murdering Gamora, Peter goes back for a set of headphones and then they escape from prison. If you expect "we promise optimal to at least neutral" play from these people I have no idea why.

Quertus has been suboptimal because he is tactically inept. Quertus has been The Load because he is tactically inept (and for other reasons - his total contribution over ~10 levels outside "transportation" could have been replaced with a bag of flour). But, as far as my senile and biased mind can remember and evaluate, he has never been actively detrimental / a net negative.

I'm not talking about a net negative, I'm talking about making a single action that makes things worse. I guess that is covered by actively detrimental but those two things should not be confused. Someone can be an active detriment in a moment but be a positive overall. Maybe Quertus's failings are far enough into the inaction space that he has actually made things worse, having not been there I can't really say.

I have to say, the whole idea of executing characters for idiotic decisions sounds like one of the most dysfunctional gaming groups I have ever heard of, and coming from me that is saying something!

Yup. Especially since there also seems to be this assumption that I am either playing a cold-blooded murderer or will break character to do so. Seriously, what happened to the generic "stop them" why do we have to escalate to murder for everything? Too much D&D, that's it, it rots the brain.

[Telok]

That last sentence militates against the opposition to playing your flaws, at least in my mind. If most of the really dumb moves are by people thinking OOC about mechanical things, then the trope-led "bad behavior" isn't as much of an issue as it's being made out to be.

I should perhaps be precise about this. If a character comes out of char-gen in session zero with the 'impulsive flaw', nobody raises any objections, and a mechanic or rp has them act... well, impulsively. I'm fine with that. The activity I see much much more of is generally in D&D, where/when there aren't any functional 'flaw mechanics' in play, and people pull idiotic moves for on ooc and mechanical reasons based on the game rules. "We get more xp and loot for harder fights" is a D&Dism I've seen in action as an excuse to literally take the hard path, murder every single living thing in a 'dungeon', or let/cause 10k+ people die in attempts to kill a perceived bbeg.

[Satinavian]

To be honest, most of the times a player has said something like "this is a really dumb move, but I got to do it," it's really not been that dumb of a thing to do. It's something totally in character and usually either the right thing or at least a neutral thing to do. Bravery and curiosity are not dumb things.

If a player says such a thing (and i hear it regularly), it means one of two things

a) "I know i am going to torpedo group progress/our PCs common goals for personall roleplaying. Are you OK with that ?"
b) "I want to distance myself from my character here. I am fully aware how stupid/wrong it is what my character is about to do. Don't think i am too dumb to recognize it."

And then it is usually done. And usually it is really in character and quite dumb. Sometimes it only adds unnecessary risks and all goes well, sometimes bad things do happen including character deaths. And that is fine.
But players do such roleplaying regularly even without promted by rules offering them rewards for it. If playing out your character is something that is done at the table than it is done, even if detrimental to progress.

Playing the super-cautious, super-paranoid person gets boring for everyone, at least in my experience. Games that incentivise spending all the time planning so that the actual execution is trivial are, to me, unplayable. I want games that encourage acting. Do something now, let the "narrative"[1] move along. More smaller actions, not one big "solve everything" action. But that's personal preference.

Jupp. And i like those. There is nothing that feels as rewarding as a mountain of preparation resulting in a smoth execution. Personal preferrences.

[Glorthindel]

I'm with Max on this one.

I've gamed with some dumb people in my time, but I cannot imagine a player declaring the actions that Drax or Starlord took, and convincing the group that they simply didn't realize that they are betraying the party and/or being monumentally stupid. I just don't know anyone dumb enough that that statement would be believable.

In fact, in the case of Starlord, any action not actively helping the party is kinda sus. Even Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who might well feel completely out of their element in such a scenario, would still at least watch the skies and/or set up Teleportation traps to prevent surprise attacks from reinforcements. Now, hindsight bias may say that such actions aren't actually useful, but that's *still* better than Starlord.

I am on the other side on this one, particularly in the point of Starlord. Sure, what he did "wasn't helping", but the only reason it was clearly going to undo the whole plan is the film still had 20 minutes left. And not helping might have been his role in that phase of the plan, to avoid him getting in the way of Iron Man and Mantis (note, Nebula was also not helping, so it wasn't only Starlord who was standing around doing nothing). In fact, him shouting at Thanos could easily have distracted him from fighting off Mantis and Iron Man, so might have been the right choice. Sure, it wasn't, but we are back to that main point of hindsight.

As for "betraying the group", his 'mistake' wasn't entirely his mistake at all - he only acted as he did because Nebula (again, who also "wasn't helping") and Mantis (who, as the "core element" of the plan, really shouldn't have wasted time and brain power getting involved) did a point-by-point explanation to Starlord of what must have happened, triggering him off. If Starlord going ape-**** was obviously going to blow the plan, both of them are clearly also culpable, because they should have known to keep their traps shut at that critical moment.

[MoiMagnus]

I am on the other side on this one, particularly in the point of Starlord. Sure, what he did "wasn't helping", but the only reason it was clearly going to undo the whole plan is the film still had 20 minutes left. And not helping might have been his role in that phase of the plan, to avoid him getting in the way of Iron Man and Mantis (note, Nebula was also not helping, so it wasn't only Starlord who was standing around doing nothing). In fact, him shouting at Thanos could easily have distracted him from fighting off Mantis and Iron Man, so might have been the right choice. Sure, it wasn't, but we are back to that main point of hindsight.

As for "betraying the group", his 'mistake' wasn't entirely his mistake at all - he only acted as he did because Nebula (again, who also "wasn't helping") and Mantis (who, as the "core element" of the plan, really shouldn't have wasted time and brain power getting involved) did a point-by-point explanation to Starlord of what must have happened, triggering him off. If Starlord going ape-**** was obviously going to blow the plan, both of them are clearly also culpable, because they should have known to keep their traps shut at that critical moment.

Trying to assign indirect responsibility is quite hard. First because in fiction, contrary to RPGs, it's the same person that pilot all the different characters. Second because in this case, everything was "predicted" by Dr Strange, which means that:
(1) Everyone was trusting Dr Strange that the plan was going to work
(2) Dr Strange needed this battle to be a failure [because the scenarists said so]

[Max_Killjoy]

Trying to assign indirect responsibility is quite hard. First because in fiction, contrary to RPGs, it's the same person that pilot all the different characters. Second because in this case, everything was "predicted" by Dr Strange, which means that:
(1) Everyone was trusting Dr Strange that the plan was going to work
(2) Dr Strange needed this battle to be a failure [because the scenarists said so]

Which works in authorial fiction, kinda, if you're OK with predetermination... but doesn't translate well to an RPG (outside of a few narrow storygaming approaches that turn gaming into collective storycrafting).

[Quertus]

The fact I recognise that allies who will stick together shoulder-to-shoulder through thick and thin is a valid mode of play doesn't mean its the only one. I've played in several campaigns where the PCs did try to kill each other, let alone make things generally worse for the party. Who says PCvPC is against the social contract?

why do we have to escalate to murder for everything? Too much D&D, that's it, it rots the brain.

Now, I know I'm getting senile, but I'm pretty sure I prefaced the post that started this sub-discussion with something like, "I prefer games where…". So you don't get to pull the "other things are valid" / "BadWrongFun" card on me discussing and explaining my preferences - at least not without *verifying* the scope of my statements first, as many of my statements are limited to that scope.

So "PCvPC is against the social contract" is part of the scope / context of the conversation.

Now, why do we have to escalate to murder? That's the wrong question. Understanding the *right* question goes hand in hand with understanding why this is a low-stress paradigm.

Imagine that you've got a player who is hyper paranoid about PvP - stresses out about it, gets panic attacks because of it, the works.

Now, imagine that they've found a group where they can actually relax, because they *know* that, the moment Drax's player realizes that he is set up to break the social contract and initiate PvP by calling Ronin, he'll work with the group (EDIT: and the whole group will work with him!) to find solutions to prevent this from happening, up to volunteering that Drax spontaneously dies of heart failure to prevent the action from occurring. Where they *know* that there are absolutely *no* obstacles that make PvP even a discussion, let alone a possibility.

Now imagine that they join a new group, and hear attitudes expressed in this thread.

Can you see how they might feel stressed?

So, the question isn't, "why do we have to escalate to murder"; the question is, "why does character death need to be on the table?".

And even that is only halfway there.

Because death isn't just "on the table", it has to cheap. Easy. Accepted at the drop of a hat. It has to be completely clear to everyone *exactly* how far everyone will go to make the game work.

It's a question of priorities.

I prefer a game where people have their properties straight. And those priorities place the health of the group over the life of a PC.

Yes, I'm creative enough to come up with *many* alternatives to "Drax drops over dead", even ignoring people who don't care about RP and personality. But I'm *willing* to let Drax die.

Not "for the story". Not "because railroad". But for the health of the group.

So, looking back at what I said,

I'm a fan of games… Where morons who hold the idiot ball (like Drax or Starlord) get murdered by their party for initiating PvP (preferably *before* they can betray the party). And the player asked to try again, not rewarded for being idiots with meta-currency.

Where flaws are a fun part of this complete breakfast.

Obviously I could have worded it better

And, if we're already resigned that Drax must die, because we simply cannot imagine a solution where he lives, I *do* like the visceral "Gamora and Starlord (or Rocket and Groot - I'm not picky) catch and murder a drunken Drax trying to radio Ronin" over him dropping dead of a heart attack.

So, what does this have to do with flaws?

Well, I prefer a gaming culture where everyone is free to run whatever personality they want. But where that will not cause problems, because *everyone* is *dedicated* to maintaining the social contract. And won't let trivialities (up to and including a character's life) get in the way.

Is that any clearer?

[Batcathat]

Well, I prefer a gaming culture where everyone is free to run whatever personality they want. But where that will not cause problems, because *everyone* is *dedicated* to maintaining the social contract. And won't let trivialities (up to and including a character's life) get in the way.

I've skimmed parts of the thread so maybe I've missed something, but I'm not sure I understand why "PC causes a situation where the PC dies" is a triviality and "PC causes a situation that puts the group in trouble" is something horrible? Is it just that the player's causing trouble for the entire group rather than just their own character?

(Oh, and will everyone please stop calling the poor guy Ronin. He might not be the MCU's most memorable villain but his name is Ronan).

[Quertus]

I'm not talking about a net negative, I'm talking about making a single action that makes things worse. I guess that is covered by actively detrimental but those two things should not be confused. Someone can be an active detriment in a moment but be a positive overall. Maybe Quertus's failings are far enough into the inaction space that he has actually made things worse, having not been there I can't really say.

Insects swarm the party. Quertus fireballs the party. Positive and negative effects, but a *net* positive.

A PC users a wish to become a Wizard "and everything that entails". Under me. Oh A very grouchy Quertus suddenly appears, and asks just who said what that resulted in him being summoned and compelled to teach. After a brief lecture, Quertus opts for "practical application" - ie, combat training. We find some rats. The Sorceress Armus iconically moves to protect casts Enlarge on the rats. She says that she did it so that they would be giant rats, and therefore vulnerable to the giant-slaying sword our bodyguard wields. *Facepalm* That's not how that works. Buffing our foes, net negative. (She's the only character I've met whose tactics even Quertus would facepalm over.)

Note, I can imagine a scenario where "fireball the party" does more harm than good. But where the plan, "fireball the party, then mass heal the party" is a net positive. So "net negative" shouldn't look at just a single action, or even necessarily a single character's actions, but a single conceptual action, a single plan.

[False God]

Insects swarm the party. Quertus fireballs the party. Positive and negative effects, but a *net* positive.

A PC users a wish to become a Wizard "and everything that entails". Under me. Oh A very grouchy Quertus suddenly appears, and asks just who said what that resulted in him being summoned and compelled to teach. After a brief lecture, Quertus opts for "practical application" - ie, combat training. We find some rats. The Sorceress Armus iconically moves to protect casts Enlarge on the rats. She says that she did it so that they would be giant rats, and therefore vulnerable to the giant-slaying sword our bodyguard wields. *Facepalm* That's not how that works. Buffing our foes, net negative. (She's the only character I've met whose tactics even Quertus would facepalm over.)

But there's a demonstrated misunderstanding of the term "giant" here. Is it a metagame term, referring only to creatures specifically tagged in the rules as "giant whatever"? Is it referring only to humanoid monsters known as "giants"? Or is it referring to anything that is much larger than it should normally be for *reasons*? Or perhaps the weapon only works on things that are considered giant, so it might cut through a giant problem but have no effect on Rodents of Unusual Size, since they're considered normal in the Fire Swamp.

By her logic, enlarging the rats, while making them more challenging, also makes them vulnerable to the McGuffin Giant-Slaying Sword.

*also, if this were 5E, enlarge is a concentration spell, so she could simply stop concentrating to end the effect. While a waste of a spell slot, an easy fix.

****Personally, I'd have allowed her trick to work. It makes the enemies more challenging, but also gives them a new weakness, which seems reasonably balanced to me, not really a net gain or a net loss IMHO. Plus, it sounds fun!

Still, there's an important distinction between "I didn't understand the use of the term 'giant' in this context." and "I summoned the Evil Lieutenant first chance I get when we're clearly unprepared for him because I've got the flaw 'Revenge' and 'Short-Sighted'."
-To be fair to Drax tho, getting his butt whooped by Ronan did make him realize the sheer difference in their power levels. While he still wanted to kill Ronan he realized his mistake and worked with the party to correct it. Which is fine storytelling.

While I hear the folks who don't like GotG for them being largely a gaggle of idiots, this moment can be one to learn from. Drax does the dumb, but Ronan is not genre savvy either, simply beating Drax within an inch of his life and dumping him in a pond of...something. In this case, the DM can do this as well since he's in charge of Ronan. Yes the party will take a serious setback to their plans, but if the DM runs Ronan as the arrogant, selfish, short-sighted, power-hungry person he is, Ronan will get all whiny as Thanos while the group recovers. Ronan will boast over Zandar before attacking, giving the party time to plan their attack. Ronan will approach slowly and ominously (in part because a ship that size takes time to land), giving the party to rally forces against him.

The DM has the opportunity to move the pieces in a believable manner that allows the party to recover from their setback and try again.

[Quertus]

I've skimmed parts of the thread so maybe I've missed something, but I'm not sure I understand why "PC causes a situation where the PC dies" is a triviality and "PC causes a situation that puts the group in trouble" is something horrible? Is it just that the player's causing trouble for the entire group rather than just their own character?

(Oh, and will everyone please stop calling the poor guy Ronin. He might not be the MCU's most memorable villain but his name is Ronan).

Ronin, Ronan, potato potahtoe.

OK, fine, you caught me - I'm just stalling because I have no clue how to clear this up.

Hmmm… let me try this:

Spoiler: and here's me answering the wrong question

Show

Let's say you a player decides to join one of my games a group with a simple premise: no PvP. They are allowed to play whatever they want, so long as they follow that one Commandment.

The player builds a character, invests in their personality, etc. Then they come to a point in the game where their in-character action would be to initiate PvP.

But that's the one Commandment, that's the one thing that's forbidden.

So the group investigates whether the character can be played differently. No dice. What if he offered incentives to keep him alive, like money. Power, too - all he has and more. Anything he asks for. But no, the player feels that his character wouldn't accept it: "you are the six-fingered man. You killed my father, prepare to die."

What is he says, "no, Inigo, I am your father."? He was just confused by the traumatic event (oh, and his true name is Lucas)? The player rejects it, knowing enough about insanity to know that a) that's not the way that they've been role-playing their character, and b) it's not something that they care to roleplay. And besides, we look nothing alike!

Given to him to raise when you were too young to remember, and the Prince and/or King were big into prima nocte? Retcon that the PC never found out?

Now, one might say that obviously the problem is showing these two backgrounds. But perhaps the players thought that, with a theme of "acceptance and true love", it wouldn't be a problem. Only Inigo / Lucas just can't let this one go, and his player won't accept any option the party can come up with.

So the player removed his character.

Or perhaps this is easier to see from the other direction.

Perhaps when Inigo noticed the count's mutation, it was the count's player who felt that the count was very sensitive (and powerful, and accustomed to the perks and excesses of nobility), and would initiate PvP in response to the peasant's affront (because the player had never even considered that anyone would ever play a non-noble as a PC). Unable to find a way to reconcile this, he suggested being the villain of the other PC's story (which, with retcon tech, was changed from "the one-armed man" to "the six-fingered man" with scarcely a ripple), and they scripted how he died to prevent PvP.

Now, is this all just some fancy illusion, like the one people use when they cannot differentiate the GM playing the opposing NPCs, and the GM working against the players? Perhaps. Or perhaps both are best differentiated from their counterparts by the corresponding attitude.

The most literal answer to the question you asked is if one violates the social contract, and the other does not.

More specifically, the actions of Drax and Starlord constitute betraying / working against the party.

Put another way, if you've got a team working on a group project, and you've got the option to add an extra person who will be attempting to sabotage the project, do you add them?

[Batcathat]

Put another way, if you've got a team working on a group project, and you've got the option to add an extra person who will be attempting to sabotage the project, do you add them?

My answer depends on two factors, I think.

First of all... what is the context? If it's an important project at work than I will obviously not want to include someone attempting to sabotage. But if it's a game, where failure or near-failure can be just as entertaining as success? That's quite different.

Secondly, is this a one time thing, a reaction to extreme circumstances, or is it a constant issue? On a related (but I suppose technically third) note, how serious is the sabotage?

So, in conclusion... I suppose I can't really give a straight answer to the question.

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: I read your stuff and I am aware you know other styles are possible but that assumption seem to be creeping into your answers anyways. However instead of getting into that (or why I still think even fictional murder is problematic, but I might circle back to that) your asking the wrong question got me thinking.

---

I think we are all asking the wrong question. The question is not "what is appropriate for PCs to do in a game" because that is going to vary with the group, system, campaign and more. Instead, whatever your answer to that question, what can character flaws in a system help your do regarding that.

So for you the answer to: How do character flaws help Drax? Not applicable, Drax is too disruptive of a character and probably shouldn't be played in the first place. On the other hand, I - assuming I'm in the right mood - would probably find it useful just for the heads-up.

And if this angle makes any sense we can go further with it.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm with Max on this one.

I've gamed with some dumb people in my time, but I cannot imagine a player declaring the actions that Drax or Starlord took, and convincing the group that they simply didn't realize that they are betraying the party and/or being monumentally stupid. I just don't know anyone dumb enough that that statement would be believable.

In fact, in the case of Starlord, any action not actively helping the party is kinda sus. Even Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who might well feel completely out of their element in such a scenario, would still at least watch the skies and/or set up Teleportation traps to prevent surprise attacks from reinforcements. Now, hindsight bias may say that such actions aren't actually useful, but that's *still* better than Starlord.

This is the kind of action I can *only* imagine happening in a game where the system is rewarding them for holding the idiot ball, the GM is offering them a 'compel', etc - not something any reasonable player would defend as anything other than intentionally hurting the party.

I can imagine it, because I can imagine different information going in than going out.

For a case like Drax's, it's simple: on the balance of probabilities, the player thinks their plan is just as likely to work than whatever other plan - an easy conclusion to jump to if the other plans have sufficient number of risks and unknown factors too. They think they can win, and if they win, the whole group wins; on the flipside, if they lose, it's not a greater loss to the group than any other loss.

For a case like Star Lord's, it's slightly more complex. Remember the scene's prefaced by Dr. Strange divining the future. Conspicuously, Dr. Strange, the guy with most information, doesn't try to stop Star Lord. This entire string of events is imaginable in a game set to your preferences: Star Lord's player asks Dr. Strange's player to stop him, and Dr. Strange's player tells him to just go ahead, because it's already accounted for. It's accurate to the degree that Strange and Star Lord are conveniently removed from play (they both get snapped, remember) as temporary penalty, only to be returned when other players have a reason to think maybe they weren't full of it.

The trick to both is that even when a game allows for multiple game paths, you only see one carried out. This is especially pronounced for the latter kind of situation. You never get to see a version where Drax wins (or get to know the probability for it), you never get to see all the bad futures Dr. Strange discarded in favor of letting Star Lord take the fall. In case like Star Lord's, it quickly turns into a question of trust, because agents with congruent values can still take different actions if they have different information. So you see Star Lord screwing up, but you also see Dr. Strange, who by all reason should've seen this coming, not stopping Star Lord. So do you trust Strange and presume there's a reason to let Star Lord off the hook? The argument for trusting Strange can be better in that moment than not trusting, even if it later turns out Strange's prophecy was full of it.

If I recognized it, and cared? I'd call them out on it.

But, more likely, IME, supposed "hindsight bias" is actually a red herring for what's really going on with the group social dynamic, and *that's* what I would be focusing on.

Do you think calling them out would be sufficient?

Why do you think it's a red herring? I'd understand saying the bias is symptomatic of another problem, and then looking for that deeper problem, but that's distinct from a red herring.

Quertus has been suboptimal because he is tactically inept. Quertus has been The Load because he is tactically inept (and for other reasons - his total contribution over ~10 levels outside "transportation" could have been replaced with a bag of flour). But, as far as my senile and biased mind can remember and evaluate, he has never been actively detrimental / a net negative.

I can believe your character wasn't a net negative, I'm less inclined to believe no-one considered them such. Some players put opportunity costs in the same bracket as real costs, they would calculate his net contribution against projected contribution of a more useful character. I can easily imagine a bunch of such players professing to follow a game set to your preferences, who would always murder Quertus for being the load. They wouldn't stop you from making and playing Quertus II - it's your individual decision what personality to play - but they'd murder them too.

[Quertus]

To Quertus: I read your stuff and I am aware you know other styles are possible but that assumption seem to be creeping into your answers anyways. However instead of getting into that (or why I still think even fictional murder is problematic, but I might circle back to that) your asking the wrong question got me thinking.

---

I think we are all asking the wrong question. The question is not "what is appropriate for PCs to do in a game" because that is going to vary with the group, system, campaign and more. Instead, whatever your answer to that question, what can character flaws in a system help your do regarding that.

So for you the answer to: How do character flaws help Drax? Not applicable, Drax is too disruptive of a character and probably shouldn't be played in the first place. On the other hand, I - assuming I'm in the right mood - would probably find it useful just for the heads-up.

And if this angle makes any sense we can go further with it.

I agree that we're asking the wrong questions about flaws. I suspect that the right question is… complicated.

So, iirc (darn senility), the base premise is that the existence of flaws communicated to the players that "Determinator or go home" is not welcome, and therefore people can run flawed characters and still be sunshine and rainbows.

The full question of one of what is allowable behavior, and what are the acceptable conditions to allow conditionally-acceptable behavior.

Then, yes, one would look at what factors (rules, flaws, session 0, table culture, social contract, shock collars) factor in to facilitating creating an environment of acceptable behaviors, and what the costs & side effects are.

And, of course, different people with different mindsets, biases, and experiences can interpret and respond differently to the same inputs, so your system must be robust enough to accommodate error correction.

All in all, much more complex than flaws as a universal silver bullet for your Determinator woes.

As I've tried to explain earlier, I prefer a culture of role-playing, and responsibility to the group, to resolve such issues. To me, "flaws" is simply a minigame; the implementation of which determines whether it is a fun, meh, annoying, or actively detrimental one.

"Get build points for describing how you're not the Determinator"? Fun. "Get beanies for holding the idiot ball and betraying the party" or "encouraged or forced to violate the social contract"? Actively detrimental.

I can imagine it, because I can imagine different information going in than going out.

For a case like Drax's, it's simple: on the balance of probabilities, the player thinks their plan is just as likely to work than whatever other plan - an easy conclusion to jump to if the other plans have sufficient number of risks and unknown factors too. They think they can win, and if they win, the whole group wins; on the flipside, if they lose, it's not a greater loss to the group than any other loss.

Drax's player was monumentally stupid: had they stayed behind and called and challenged Ronan after the party left, it's a much lesser loss condition - they help the party either way.

And talk of Drax "winning" does nothing to change the nature of the betrayal.

Why do you think it's a red herring? I'd understand saying the bias is symptomatic of another problem, and then looking for that deeper problem, but that's distinct from a red herring.

Eh, I meant what you said. If you pursue the symptom as its own end, is it not acting as a red herring? Or have I misused my words again?

I can believe your character wasn't a net negative, I'm less inclined to believe no-one considered them such. Some players put opportunity costs in the same bracket as real costs, they would calculate his net contribution against projected contribution of a more useful character. I can easily imagine a bunch of such players professing to follow a game set to your preferences, who would always murder Quertus for being the load.

Do you think calling them out would be sufficient?

Players (and GMs) who are ignorant get educated. Those who revel in their ignorance get a (verbal) clue-by-four.

Many of my groups, I'm the *tame* one compared to the reaming players would get for persisting in being that dumb. I've been blessed with friends who simply won't tolerate… people who refuse to learn.

So, whether it's hindsight bias, or measuring against a projected figure instead of a solid baseline (fine for "balance to the table", not for "net contribution"), the behavior is not likely to stand, as the group is unlikely to stand for it.

[Cluedrew]

"Get beanies for holding the idiot ball and betraying the party" or "encouraged or forced to violate the social contract"? Actively detrimental.

This is why I keep calling attention to your assumptions about what is allowed in the social contract. Yes there is an "or" in the middle but play-style dependent things* and the generalised (in that we abstract over what the social contract is) elements of good table health are being put in the same box.

Also you appear to be equating all mistakes as holding the ball (type of ball does not matter), and not sure the out-of-character ones. Also you appear to be equating all mistakes that effect the rest of the party as betrayal. "Failure is betrayal." Maybe you just haven't talked about the middle ground but honestly I think that middle ground is where most of the interesting conversation is.

* OK, fairly common play-style things (depending on how you use party I agree with both of them personally) but still they aren't universal.

And talk of Drax "winning" does nothing to change the nature of the betrayal.

I'm also going to point Drax can't betray people he is not allied with and he wasn't really part of the group yet. To the point I didn't even realise he was one of the Guardians of the Galaxy yet. Why would he be? He and the other four want to go in opposite directions relative to Ronan.

[NichG]

I'm also going to point Drax can't betray people he is not allied with and he wasn't really part of the group yet. To the point I didn't even realise he was one of the Guardians of the Galaxy yet. Why would he be? He and the other four want to go in opposite directions relative to Ronan.

Does that actually matter if, OOC, Drax is a PC?

I take the 'kill Drax' point to be in part that there's an assumption that due to OOC considerations PCs don't treat each other like expendable minions of the BBEG (and life is cheap in those movies, see e.g. the counter-mutiny massacre in GotG2). But sometimes that can be used by a player as shelter for doing things that, if not for that metagame relationship, would result in initiative rolled and lethal alpha strike without anyone at the table batting an eye.

Similarly if the system says 'play up your flaws' that can create a similar shelter for behavior that would make anyone else, IC, an enemy. Which in this case is being stated as a way to interpret flaw systems that Quertus would rather avoid, I think.

It's like with this hindsight thing - if the PCs get ambushed in the dead of night by someone going for a killshot, sure maybe they're actually a trainer who is trying to help them improve their alertness like Inspector Cluseau's assistant. But the PCs will naturally treat that like an assassination and respond accordingly.

[Tanarii]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games

[Vahnavoi]

Drax's player was monumentally stupid: had they stayed behind and called and challenged Ronan after the party left, it's a much lesser loss condition - they help the party either way.

That part was already addressed in the argument you quoted.: "on the balance of probabilities, the player thinks their plan is just as likely to work than whatever other plan". In simplest terms, going in, the player doesn't think the others leaving first makes a difference. (Going out, it's still not clear if it would have made a difference. Again, that game branch is never seen and the probability is unknown. For the sake of argument, you can imagine a GM doing your own sealed envelope trick from the agency thread, revealing these strategies to be equivalent, with a better option that neither the movie nor us has brought up yet.)

And talk of Drax "winning" does nothing to change the nature of the betrayal.

In a stochastic game, it would be downright weird to not talk about that and claim it changes nothing. Are you rolling dice? Drawing cards? Working on incomplete information? If the equilibrium strategy for a game is unstable due to some random function, even a well-intentioned agent can have incentive to gamble on defection. More importantly, if there's disagreement over indistinct actions, there's incentive to "defect" just to get over a pointless argument.

A simpler example of indistinct choices: imagine a game where you check for to-hit and to-penetrate separately. You have apparent choice of two actions: accurate-but-light attack, with 80% chance to hit but 20% chance to penetrate, and inaccurate-but-heavy attack, with 20% chance to hit yet 80% chance to penetrate. You crunch the numbers and realize they are really just one action: do damage with 16% chance.

So suppose everyone's rooting for you to pick the first one, but you pick the second, and fail the roll. Everyone is appalled at you for choosing the less accurate option. Will you admit defection, or argue it literally didn't make a difference?

Now take that simple idea from the simple example and extrapolate it on the complex situation. What are you betraying? Party consensus? You want a game where there's room for individual decisions. If there's ever a time for that, I'd think it to be a case like this.

On the flipside, what is your party gaining, if they punish you? Your actions flow from available information, a dead character or two won't prevent you from doing this again in the future. Again, agents with congruent values can act differently when they have different information, so your actions aren't necessarily proof of deviating from group values.

Eh, I meant what you said. If you pursue the symptom as its own end, is it not acting as a red herring? Or have I misused my words again?

If you mean what I said, the argument is clear enough. Yes, a bias can arise from some other problem. I do still think the bias itself needs attention, because it's not clear those other problems are solvable.

Players (and GMs) who are ignorant get educated. Those who revel in their ignorance get a (verbal) clue-by-four.

Many of my groups, I'm the *tame* one compared to the reaming players would get for persisting in being that dumb. I've been blessed with friends who simply won't tolerate… people who refuse to learn.

So, whether it's hindsight bias, or measuring against a projected figure instead of a solid baseline (fine for "balance to the table", not for "net contribution"), the behavior is not likely to stand, as the group is unlikely to stand for it.

When I asked "Do you think calling them out would be sufficient?", I was still talking about hindsight bias, and not this other thing, so by putting my question at the end, you changed what's being asked.

To clarify: I'm skeptical calling people out does much to fix hindsight bias, because for most cognitive biases, knowing about them doesn't make you much better at avoiding them.

As for placing opportunity costs in the same bracket as real costs, that I'm fairly sure is a learned thing. People are normally quite bad at thinking like this. From a viewpoint of a group of such players, they would think you are dumb and unable to learn, should you insist on making a character like Quertus despite their repeated attempts at punishing you by murdering him.

This said, I do not endorse metagaming character creation opportunity costs, because I find it places undue restrictions on playable characters. I don't find it good gaming, I just don't think it can be attributed to ignorance, nor do I see it as obviously inconsistent with the kinds of games you prefer. Whether it'd be compatible with your friends is another thing.