BW and Intra-party Conflict

[Thor Olavsrud]

I've been trying to dodge around intraparty conflict too, its an old D&D habit that is hard in breaking.

This comes from the Keiber Burning thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1566&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) in the play by post forum. Thought I'd split it out here so I don't intrude on their thread anymore.

Anyway, as I said in that thread, intra-party conflict is not something to necessarily avoid in Burning Wheel. Conflicting Beliefs brought into such play can turn these conflicts into Artha engines for the group.

Here's the secret though: you must remain aware that you are a player (not your character) who is there to have fun with the other players and support them in having fun too. It's said in the books several times: Burning Wheel doesn't care about character motivations. Player priorities are what matter.

What does that mean for you in play? It means that when you do something in the course of play, there should be a few filters running in the back of your mind. 1. Is this fun for me? and 2. Will this be fun for everyone else? 3. Is this going to kick this game into high gear?

When you and another member of your group steer your characters into conflict, you are doing just that: steering. And you should always be aware that it is your characters that are in conflict, not the players. The players should be having a grand old time.

One thing that is NEVER a valid excuse for ANYTHING, at my table at least, is "But that's what my character would do."

Your character does what YOU want him to do. A savvy player can engineer motivation for a character to do anything he wants if he tries hard enough.

So if you find your characters in conflict and your first instinct is to do something that could destroy someone else's fun or wreck the game, stop for a moment and think through your options. It's perfectly valid to say to the group: "Here's what I'm thinking but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. What do you think would be cool right here?"

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What do you guys think?

[Kublai]

I'm right there with you, Thor. My favorite saying as a GM is "If you've created a character that wants to do something you as a player doesn't, then you've created a bad character!"

[stormsweeper]

The "it's what my character would do" excuse is often used when the player is acting like a dick. Which is probably what the player wants to do.

[Thor Olavsrud]

The "it's what my character would do" excuse is often used when the player is acting like a dick. Which is probably what the player wants to do.

Instinct no. 1 on Thor's character sheet:
1. If a player is acting like a dick because he wants to be a dick, STAB HIM IN THE FACE. :twisted:

[Redoid]

One thing that is NEVER a valid excuse for ANYTHING, at my table at least, is "But that's what my character would do."

Your character does what YOU want him to do. A savvy player can engineer motivation for a character to do anything he wants if he tries hard enough.


Sample from an actual play. A character that our group of characters had met before (but not for long, he was still an outsider) took part in the bullying of a merchant. The goal was to intimidate him, but the character in question used lethal force, resulting in an unwanted situation for the group.

My character would naturally turn the other to the militia. As a player, I wouldn't want to break the game because my friend thought that stabbing repetedly someone was a good way to ensure his cooperation to follow us until he could be interrogated.

What should I have done?

[Kublai]

A duel of wits!!!

At stake: You win, the murderer turns himself in to the authorities. He wins, you shut up and accept that your comrade is a murderer who you secretly loathe.

[donbaloo]

As you can see in Thor's quoting me above, we've always tried to avoid intraparty conflict as much as possible while playing D&D...and we have been very successful at it too. That's why it struck me as strange when I read through the Duel of Wits and saw the comments (or maybe it was in a post somewhere) talking about how it was a nifty mechanic that bypasses what typically turns into "hours of head-butting". I thought it was a pretty sweet mechanic anyway even for just PC/NPC debates but I can see how it would be gold when dealing with intraparty conflict.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hey Redoid,

My first question, and my answer to the rest depends on this, is how did you, not your character, feel about what happened? Did you feel that the other player had taken the game into a place you didn't like? Or did you find it interesting but were unsure how to deal with it based on the character you were playing?

This is a very important distinction. If it was the former, this is not something you could solve in the context of the game. Having your character turn his character in would not fix the situation.

If it were the latter, and I wasn't sure what to do, I think I would have asked to pause the game and raised the issue with everyone else. "In this situation, I feel like my character would do this, but I think that could ruin the game. What do you guys think?"

It seems really weird to someone who's never done it before, I know. But doing this is OK. Gaming is a shared imagined activity. It requires everyone at the table to work together to shape it. Sometimes, in order to keep it going, you have to step outside of it and help each other patch up the illusion so that you remain on the same page.

Kublai's suggestion may be the right approach. The GM might also be helpful and provide evidence right there and then that the merchant was a Bad GuyTM.

but my point is that doing something destructive to the game in order to preserve the fidelity of the character isn't going to make the game more fun for anyone. So work together and find some way around it.

[donbaloo]

Man, there's just so much good philosophy concerning gaming that I've never in my life even stumbled upon for some reason. Why have I never thought of these things? I've started peeking in at the Forge just to read some of that stuff. I think my concept of gaming is undergoing a serious metamorphosis. And lots of it seems like it should just be common sense...

Edit: Perhaps my concept of posting needs a metamorphosis...since I effectively took this thread no where with what I added. :(

[Kaare Berg]

One thing that is NEVER a valid excuse for ANYTHING, at my table at least, is "But that's what my character would do."

This so hits the kernel of the revolution that is evolving around my table at the moment. And I got to tell you removing the concept of "true to character roleplaying" from long time immersjonists is a though fight.

The kernel of the struggle is that as a player, one tends to hold focus on the one character that one controls, and naturally this becomes the most important character in the whole world. However this focus tends to exclude the Player Priority and Communal Storytelling thought.

Take my friends Dragonlance D20 game as an example (in which I do not participate!). A black robe (evil) mage and a wannabe solamnic knight (good) in the same party. Sosial contract between the evil guy and the good guy excludes backstabbing to maintain game fun.
Last session the black robe sneaks off and frees a bound demon despite the Party deciding not to. In Character and because the player most likely saw the Oppertunity for Fun and Conflict down the road. When telling me about this game the Good Guy says "evidently I can't trust this character any longer".

Now this will be a good thing if it leads to Fun and Conflict, not to mention though choices. (e.g I do not trust this black robe, but only he can lead my friends safely to the Mountain of Doom, do I follow my heart or save my friends). However, being a big however, if the Good Guy now ends up complicating play because his character doesn't trust the Black Robe this is a major brake and officially No Fun.

The big issue here is how to convert people from the My Character is Sacrosant mind set to the My Character is but a Tool for Me to Have Fun Mindset.

K

[Deacon Blues]

[quote=donbaloo]So if you find your characters in conflict and your first instinct is to do something that could destroy someone else's fun or wreck the game, stop for a moment and think through your options. It's perfectly valid to say to the group: "Here's what I'm thinking but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. What do you think would be cool right here?"

I'm glad someone else thinks this. My long-standing rule of thumb is, "If you're being a dick, and your excuse is 'Sorry, that's what my character would do', that doesn't make you any less of a dick."

[Redoid]

Hey Redoid,

My first question, and my answer to the rest depends on this, is how did you, not your character, feel about what happened? Did you feel that the other player had taken the game into a place you didn't like? Or did you find it interesting but were unsure how to deal with it based on the character you were playing?


I have no problem with the player, I know he isn't serial killer in disguise :) But I had a problem because I didn't want to derail the game, because we had a good time and all, because of a "misjudgement" of a fellow player. But I was torn because, well, my character wouldn't stand murder in this conditions.

I ended up saying nothing, "rationalizing" it as "better end the task at hand and explain everything later", but it wasn't great character immersion.


If it were the latter, and I wasn't sure what to do, I think I would have asked to pause the game and raised the issue with everyone else. "In this situation, I feel like my character would do this, but I think that could ruin the game. What do you guys think?"


It woudl break the immersion, wouldn't it?


Kublai's suggestion may be the right approach. The GM might also be helpful and provide evidence right there and then that the merchant was a Bad GuyTM.


I enjoyed Kublai's suggestion.


but my point is that doing something destructive to the game in order to preserve the fidelity of the character isn't going to make the game more fun for anyone. So work together and find some way around it.

I understand that, often, player says "my character would do this" because it's an excuse for being a dick. But I wanted to put things in perspectives, there are some cases where it's more difficult to decide.

[stormsweeper]

It woudl break the immersion, wouldn't it?

Which is more important, character immersion or player fun?


I understand that, often, player says "my character would do this" because it's an excuse for being a dick. But I wanted to put things in perspectives, there are some cases where it's more difficult to decide.

That's why I said often, and not always. 8)

[Thor Olavsrud]

It woudl break the immersion, wouldn't it?

Two things:
1. It sounds like your character immersion was screwed anyway. The only way to maintain immersion in that scene as you described it, was to turn the other guy's character in. Since that wasn't really an option, your immersion was gone anyway. At that point, better to stop the game and try to patch things up so you can re-immerse.

2. IMHO, character immersion is a sacred cow that should be challenged. This is not, by any means, meant to imply that character immersion is bad, or not-fun, or something that you shouldn't strive for if you want to. I enjoy it myself. At the same time, somewhere in the course of the last 12 years or so, it has somehow become this holy grail of role-playing, which I think is utter bullshit.

People think you're only role-playing if you're in character all the time. There are games that give rewards for staying in character. And I've heard of plenty of GMs that penalize slipping out of character. "In-character" knowledge has become this sacred thing, and using "Out of character" knowledge has become a sin akin to sleeping with your mother.

I find the whole thing somewhat incomprehensible. Last month, Dro eBayed some old issues of the roleplaying magazine Arcane (I think they were from 93 or 94). There was this one article about GM techniques. The author related the idea of taking a player whose character had been imprisoned and locking him in a closet so he could "get the experience." This poor kid, assuming the thing was real, probably spent a few hours in a closet bored out of his skull while his friends had fun playing the game. I kinda hope that he kicked the GM in the head and never played again after the whole experience, but who knows.

My point is that Immersion does not necessarily equal fun. The opposite is also true: non-immersion does not necessarily equal non-fun. Sometimes, coming out of character periodically can help make those immersive moments more intense, as you maneuver your characters into fun situations.

Some people think the ultimate goal of role-playing is to reach total and utter immersion in your character. If it works for them, that's awesome. To me, the goal of role-playing is to have a rockin' good time with my mates.

And just like I couldn't read my ex-wife's mind if she got pissed about something, I'm not gifted with the ability to read my friends' minds either. Sometimes, I just gotta call timeout and ask.

[Redoid]

It woudl break the immersion, wouldn't it?

Two things:
1. It sounds like your character immersion was screwed anyway. The only way to maintain immersion in that scene as you described it, was to turn the other guy's character in. Since that wasn't really an option, your immersion was gone anyway. At that point, better to stop the game and try to patch things up so you can re-immerse.

You're right, especially since I wasn't the only one to wonder what to do, and if it woudl be really wise, to, say, ask him to take a shift at night in the forest the next time...


I find the whole thing somewhat incomprehensible. Last month, Dro eBayed some old issues of the roleplaying magazine Arcane (I think they were from 93 or 94). There was this one article about GM techniques. The author related the idea of taking a player whose character had been imprisoned and locking him in a closet so he could "get the experience." This poor kid, assuming the thing was real, probably spent a few hours in a closet bored out of his skull while his friends had fun playing the game. I kinda hope that he kicked the GM in the head and never played again after the whole experience, but who knows.


Gee, that's... stupid. I wonder how they could print that piece of bullshit advice.

[Kaare Berg]

Trust the BW Crew to start fucking with sacred cows.

This time I'll unzip aswell. Thor's point is simple. He plays to have a good time, and assuming you do the same, Immersion becomes just another tool. And like all tools you use only when you need to.

Another such holy cow has been the suspension of disbelif. Very popular in Dragon magazine in the early nineties.

And I've heard of plenty of GMs that penalize slipping out of character. "In-character" knowledge has become this sacred thing, and using "Out of character" knowledge has become a sin akin to sleeping with your mother.

We did this a lot. You character isn't present in the scene? Well then leave the room or hold your ears. Dude, I've spent hours in that hallway bored out of my skull. Now I'm working on making my group realise that character knowledge and player knowledge are not sepreate things when it comes to dictating character actions.

Ask yourself, what's more fun:

a. walking into a dark cave knowing ther might be something horrible in there.

or

b. walking into a dark cave knowing that the horrible skull-sucker monster just killed your friend in that cave.

K

[Kane]

Thanks for stating this, Thor. I think some of these quotes are going in my GM Toolbox.

I recently left a game where there was intra-party conflict from about 30 minutes when we started. Character A was a pickpocket, and Character B was extremely honest. They clashed right away, and we lost about an hour watching these two argue over whether A should return a wallet she had just stolen. It was scary watching these two interact. It always seemed to end in a shouting match, and one of them walking off in a huff.

My point is, how can such a situation be avoided? What can be done to defuse a seemingly intractable intra-party conflict?

P.S.: This is the same character I discussed in this thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=188599

[MetalBard]

Thanks for stating this, Thor. I think some of these quotes are going in my GM Toolbox.

I recently left a game where there was intra-party conflict from about 30 minutes when we started. Character A was a pickpocket, and Character B was extremely honest. They clashed right away, and we lost about an hour watching these two argue over whether A should return a wallet she had just stolen. It was scary watching these two interact. It always seemed to end in a shouting match, and one of them walking off in a huff.

My point is, how can such a situation be avoided? What can be done to defuse a seemingly intractable intra-party conflict?

P.S.: This is the same character I discussed in this thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=188599

Duel of Wits, baby! You just have to get the two of them to agree that the results are binding...

[Thor Olavsrud]

My point is, how can such a situation be avoided? What can be done to defuse a seemingly intractable intra-party conflict?

As MetalBard noted, the Duel of Wits might very well be the way to go. HOWEVER, it sounds to me, from the description that you gave that this has nothing to do with the characters at all. These players are CHOOSING to fuck with each other. And it sounds like they're ruining everyone else's fun in the process.

That sort of thing is great, IF everyone agrees that it's adding a fun dimension of conflict to the game. If that's the case, use the Duel of Wits. That's what it's for.

If the players are choosing to fuck with each other, then the group needs to ask them to hold their dick-waving contests outside the game.