#3: Seven is an Odd Number

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/building/building3.phtml

Summary:

Further advice on the seven rules.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/building/building3.phtml) for more information.

[smascrns]

Players who play NENADs also tend to get addicted to them, playing them over and over again and often get their fun from removing the fun of other players through unconstructive inter-party strife and violence. // These players aren't really even playing their character most of the time
The bottom line? Your seven rules have almost nothing to do with characters. They are all about player interaction. It's an important subject for sure but why not discuss it directly instead of disguising it under character creation?

Take, for instance, the NENAD. Now, a player wants to play a NENAD. That can disrupt the collaboration between characters if the NENAD turns on the other characters and that may lead to conflicts between players. Still, the players may be good friends and be willing to accept the NENAD in their group of characters. All that is needed is a good balance to the mischievious nature of the creature. In a magical world it can be some unspecified magical device that will ensure that the NENAD receives as many damage as he delivers to other party members (there's always a way to explain this). It seems that a NENAD is a selfish character that thinks about him first and foremost. He is always wanting to hurt others but that does not mean that he wants to be hurt himself, on the contrary. There are other ways to put the NENAD in line without disrupting the character concept. As long as the players work well together they can find ways to have such characters being played according to their concept without disrupting the game group. If the players don't work well together, not matter how complementary their characters may be, the conflicts will come sooner or latter.

My conclusion? You have some sound rules for character creation in your list but you also have there things that don't belong in the set.

[JA_Reave]

Ugh. I'll say it again. These "rules" are aimed at only a specific kind of group playing a specific kind of game. The field of players this so called advice is aiming at is much narrower than the author thinks. Seriously. There are so many games out there that this stuff doesn't apply to.

JAR

[gschneider]

They are all about player interaction. It's an important subject for sure but why not discuss it directly instead of disguising it under character creation?


That is a very good question. The proper answer is that I don't believe in their is a difference between player inetraction and character interaction. They are really the same thing. And just as you pick your players, you shoudl pick your characters. For those of us lucky enough to be able to have a lot of control over our players, we don't need much control over the characters. However, for those of us who have a limited selection of gamers (such as in Montana) we need to exert more control over characters in order to control the players.

And that is my real answer - that I hate players that ruin a campaign with silly actions and then say "but that's what my character would do!" as if it was some sort of excuse for bad behavior. So I enforce controls with the character so that if a player is acting up and ruining my campaign the responsibility lies solidly with the player and I can deal with them.

As a GM my goal is the fun of the group more then the fun of anyone in particular (including myself) so I need to run things with that in mind. Most players tend to think of themselves and not the group, and having discussion about "rules" like these at least brings into the open the conversation about the groups fun vs. individual fun.

Generally, when everybody is having fun, the whole experience is better for everyone. Thus, characters that work towards that goal tend to be better characters - if fun is the ultimate goal.

There are so many games out there that this stuff doesn't apply to.


There are a lot of games certainly. It really is a whole seperate discussion about what makes a quality game. For me, it is character interaction and character development. And that usually takes a while. I don't think it really gets going until somewhere in the 40-50 session range and I would wager (a safe wager as proof would be hard to come by) that games that follow these rules are going to be a lot longer lasting and more fulfilling to the players then ones that don't - even if those ones are really cool game systems like Nobilis or Amber. Because in the end they are just characters, regardless of what cool abilities they have.

Antagonistic games seem to have a built in timeline for me. Players are good enough that eventually they'll beat the other players. Is that fun? Certainly for the winner, hopefully for the loser. But if I was to play the odds on how to best spend my time for the maximum fun, that isn't where I am going to be.

Finally, now that I am done with the seven rules part of my column, I just wanted to thank all of you who where critical of my rules and put together well thought out responses. As always, when ideas clash, something better is created and certainly there are things I am thinking about changing in my rules. But change is slow and I have to ponder. Perhaps when I'm done with the column I'll come back to the seven rules and we'll see what is different and see what impact all of you have had on me.

Greg

[smascrns]

That is a very good question. The proper answer is that I don't believe in their is a difference between player inetraction and character interaction. They are really the same thing.
I have a different opinion. If player A says to player B, "pass me the dice" this is squarely player interaction. He is going to use the dice to decide on the outcome of the character's action so it relates to character interaction, but it is not character interaction.

As a player I can think "X [my character] is mad with Z [player B's character]" and still I may not be mad at B. On the other hand, I may think "Yes, what B did is what should be expected from him, B is playing it by the book and X should expect this", thus accepting the rationale for B's behavior while playing his character, and still be mad at B for behaving that way. The difference is that my character X is mad with Z because Z backstabed him. I am mad with player B because he is playing in such terms that create a conflict between us, a conflict that diminishes my fun.

You say it yourself, actually: "As a GM my goal is the fun of the group more then the fun of anyone in particular". Players want to have fun, their playing (their action as players) is to have fun. Characters want to achieve whatever goals they have. Even if these goals are about fun their fun is not the fun of playing. So there's a difference.

we need to exert more control over characters in order to control the players.
As I said, your problem is with the players but you choose to avoid confronting the problem directly. Instead of saying to the troublesome players that they are not playing in an acceptable way because they are diminishing the group's fun, you choose an indirect way to deal with the issue by focuzing on the characters.

And that is my real answer - that I hate players that ruin a campaign with silly actions and then say "but that's what my character would do!" as if it was some sort of excuse for bad behavior.
What is interesting is that your troublesome players follow exactly the same route than you. Instead of confronting the fact that they are enjoying themselves by diminishing the fun of the rest of the group they present a rationale that allows them to avoid the consequences. They use their characters to avoid the real issue - a conflict among players - and you accept those terms by focuzing on the characters like them.

(including myself) so I need to run things with that in mind. Most players tend to think of themselves and not the group, and having discussion bout "rules" like these at least brings into the open the conversation about the groups fun vs. individual fun.
It depends. With some people it is better to be direct. With other people it may be better to follow an indirect route. My point is that one must be clear about what are issues that relate to the characters and what are issues about player behavior.