Trust in RPGs

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by spike at 2005-05-22 12:28:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

I will agree that trust is a serious issue. Unfortunately I don't think there is any real way to...err... legislate it. No game design, no matter how insightful is going to change how humans play. We are a competetive species, and we enjoy winning, americans more than most. You could theoretically design a game with no game masters, but you'd still see the players competing with each other, trying to win. It's just who we are.
As players, as Game masters (storytellers, DM's, referee's, what have you) it is ultimately up to us to try and bridge that trust gap in our own games. I've read columns where the GM seems to be gleefull about the prospect of screwing his characters over, I've read, and played with, players who went out of their way to make the GM's life miserable. Both churn my stomach, and I won't play with a GM that 'screws' his players, and I don't envite 'spoilers' back to my table, it's the only way I know to deal with those bad apples.
Maybe that's why I like games with hard and fast rules for things. They make it easier to trust someone, because rules will dictate what is allowed, what will work. I almost quit playing several times over frustration, when I would come up with something clever not covered in the rules, and be told by fiat it wouldn't work, just because. Trust. I no longer trusted GM's to have an open mind to clever ideas. They didn't trust that I was honestly roleplaying instead of trying to 'ruin' their story.
I guess my point is that game designs that acknowldge the lack of trust, and accomodate it will work better than games that ignore it. One could argue that games are hardly the medium, and game designers are hardly the people, to change human nature. That's what religon is for.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Mark Threlfall at 2005-05-22 15:15:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

I believe you there always will be an element of competition at the table, even though rpgs are not meant to be competitive there is an element of it present at all times. However, when you blatantly make the games competitive, they are the worse kinds. That is why I cannot abide playing tournements at conventions.

However. The trust I think that is being discussed here is one where the GM and the Player build a concept that buys into the world the GM has made and that the player really wants to play. I agree that very few games are set up in such a fashion that says. OK so you want to create a very poiltically astute character, you understand human realtionships really well and can create/manipulate situations for certain ends. Fine, sit down talk to the GM say this is what you want to be GOOD at and I mean you do not normally fail and go for it. It does not mean someone else sees what you are doing and reacts it just says you are good at that, not covering your tracks. I use this example because a few years ago thats precisely what a player of mine wanted. Someone who would grow to become a real canny political manipulator, one that people respected. To do this I had to allow victories and he had to trust that I would not always block his path to these victories. If I did he would have worried backed off and not taken the bigger risks later in the game that really drove the story forward.

I have only pulled it off this once in the last 20 years. Oddly the last time (before the above example) it worked I was fairly new to roleplaying, as was the rest of my group and our play style worked this way naturally. It was playing in "competitive" environments that killed my trust and I belive other peoples.

Because of this both those games stand out as amazing games. The first I played. The example I GMd. Of course they are not the only way to play, but for me they stood out, because everyone trusted everyone. If we succeeded we succeeded if we did not we did not and moved on, tried to find the angle.

However, the ony way to win trust, I think, is to blatantly allow these strengths to show, so on occasion your PCs have to shine. But when they do not, when they fail they have to be given an out, some way to flee or hide to lick their wounds, rebuild their faction or something. And to learn why they failed, so they can plan better next time.

This does mean on "fall of the dice issues" like combat you are at more of a whim. It does I believe suit certain game styles more than others.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by spike at 2005-05-23 09:58:47
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hmm... very good post by the way. I avoided the 'trust deathtrap' of tournament play by not going to conventions. But then, I wargame too, and I've played strictly player versus player games at times (pheonix command back in the day.. brutal stuff) but my playing style is informed by my nature. I'm new to this GNS/GDS theory stuff, and I am not sure I agree completely with it, but I enjoy making detailed characters, characters with history and personality, and expanding on that as I play. As a GM I spend a full game session just getting characters built, asking pointed questions and almost interrogating my players, and then I build the game around them and their actions. The trust issue is critical to me, as players that don't want to 'give me anything' don't realize that they are hurting themselves and limiting their enjoyment of the game.
I've found bribery to be highly effective as a motivator. Even the least trusting, least creative player will put for some effort if he realizes that XP is on the line, or neat toys, or some other 'tangible' or 'rule based' reward is on the line.
I think the same thing is true when convincing a player to make a character along non-standard lines (your political player), if they feel there is a reason to try out that character they always wanted to, they'll do it. How, that is the key.
My only answer is to make sure that the story NEVER EVER hinges on one dice roll. Combat rarely does, why should your social works or political processes be different. One bad (even abysmally bad) roll should be a setback, not a career ender. If you do this consistantly players may just open up. At least I hope so.