Illusion of Control
I’ve been struggling a bit with my current campaign, not because I don’t like the direction it’s going, but because it feels like I’ve lost (almost completely) the interest of one of the longest-running players. It’s frustrating, because my primary goal in DM-ing is to ensure that all the players (myself included) have a good time, and this player isn’t anymore. It’s doubly frustrating because the other long-running player seems to be enjoying the campaign immensely, and we both seem to be feeding off each other’s interest, and the two newcomers likewise seem heavily engaged (though to a slightly lesser extent), to the point where I would contend that this is my most successful campaign ever.
I’ve made repeated attempts to try to get this unsatisfied player more involved with the campaign. When he was frustrated about the relative irrelevance of some of his skill choices, I let him change them. Since he chose a class that was new and unfamiliar to him, I’ve been offering occasional advice on the best choices to make, so that he isn’t again saddled with a “sub-par” selection. When he had a major “identity crisis” several months ago, I gave him the option of changing his character to another he might find more suitable, and after he decided to stick with his current character, I gave him the option of making several radical changes to his character progression to better involve him with the storyline, including spending several hours building and balancing a unique class for his new path.
And yet none of it seems to make a difference, as the player always starts to lose interest 1-2 sessions after a major change. I don’t blame him, because it’s just as much (if not more) my responsibility to make sure that all players are statisfied. So I’ve been struggling to come up with a solution, going back over the entire game to see if I could determine a better course, one that might make the game fun and exciting for everyone.
In so doing, I’ve looked back at the adventures where the player seemed most engaged with the story. Based on his enthusiasm, I’d hazard a guess that his favorite session was one where the other primary character was incarcerated and off-stage, and a new player was still getting used to the group, and quite willing to tag along with little input. I basically gave Player A free rein to do as he pleased, and he happily obliged: getting into and out of all sorts of trouble. The opponents he faced were of minimal skill, so he was able to easily manipulate or intimidate his way to victory in almost every case. During this escapade, he had almost total control of the spotlight, never suffered any meaningful defeat or failure, and virtually every idea he had ended in success.
Looking at the last adventure - after which he expressed his general discontent - I looked back at the events. At the very start of the adventure, his first idea ended in a particularly embarrassing failure, and he was forced to rely on the other PCs to rescue him. The second combat, his defensive strategy was thwarted almost immediately by an enemy caster, and he was quickly incapacitated again. During the climactic battle of the adventure, there were defenses in place that thwarted several of the character’s favorite abilities, forcing him into alternate and occasionally sub-standard tactics. I didn’t make any of the decisions explicitly to punish the character, but simply played the opposition as I felt they would react. The final BBEG had been observing and analyzing the players for months, and would know their tactics nearly as well as they knew themselves, and given his near-godlike intelligence, it was simply inconceivable that he wouldn’t work to hamper them in any ways possible.
The player has also ceased any efforts to do inter-session play, and I believe that it’s my fault. His last two attempts were both excellently written, but in each, his character was a nigh-unstoppable juggernaut before whom all NPCs either bowed in reverence or fled in abject terror. In my estimation, the NPCs in question wouldn’t react that way, so I just told him it wouldn’t work, and tried to point out ways that he could achieve his goals… given time. Faced with the prospect of implementing my suggestions, he changed his mind and sought a different direction to pursue his destiny.
Based on this evidence, I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that our playstyles may be incompatible. I don’t want to run a game where the characters succeed spectacularly against all opposition, and never taste bitter defeat. It is my sincere belief that our response to failure is one of the defining aspects of our character, and I’m unwilling to discard that aspect of character growth within the game. However, I believe that I may have subconsciously overreacted in opposition to the perceived attack on my preferred style of play. I think that I have been less open to this player’s chosen strategies than I should have been, in an effort to “prove” the supposed superiority of my position.
With this realization, perhaps I can come to some sort of compromise which would be amenable to both of us, and simultaneously not impinge upon the other players’ enjoyment of the game. I’m not willing to give this player carte blanche to run rampant through the world without any challenge, but perhaps I can be more open to his desire to “win”, relinquishing some authorial control to the player, at least in some circumstances.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Oh, how to comment…
As is known by you, I believe that a character is far more than the stats on the character sheet. However, in a situation where a person had some idea of what he/she wanted to do, particularly if he/she is basing success or failure on a perceived power from the numbers on the sheet that may or may not be superior, I am absolutely behind playing-out the events in question, including all of the requisite die rolls and mechanical resolutions. This not only allows the player and GM to put everything into focus in a way that is easily quantifiable and enact a solid resolution using the mechanics already in place, but it also forces the participants to live with the results for good or ill. No ret-cons here, simply play the ambush/meeting/assault out and see what happens. If the PC winds up being hunted like a dog because he/she failed to account for countermeasures for example, then the PC (and the player) has to live with those consequences from that point forward, continually watching over his/her shoulder for the inevitable “rub-out†by the offended faction. If the character succeeds, then he/she has to likewise take that into account for all future actions. By taking the success into account I mean that the PC must then devote the in-game time and resources to maintaining and growing the hold on the new position/assets or risk losing them because of a lack of attention. The key here is to remember that events continue and NPCs act on their agendas without the permission of the PCs.
To make this work, it is imperative that both players and GMs understand how similar actions play-out in real life. For example: The takeover of the Gambino family by John Ghotti was really the icing on the cake of events more than thirty years in the making! Ghotti lived and breathed mob business, so he had essentially devoted every minute of every day for many years to climbing the ladder in the family, where he sat for only six years (unless one includes the ten years in prison before he died). In the fantasy gaming context, the timelines are likely to be extended greatly given the level of magic and magical protections, and that some inherently long-lived races that could easily sit at the head of a family for centuries. Since nobody ascends to such a level of power out of complacency, it would be a mistake for anyone to underestimate the level of planning someone in such a seat might have in place specifically to prevent the sort of coup that a player might try. Given this, it should take quite a long time for a player to covertly move the pieces around the board, mayhap decades, before finally pouncing on the true target of the plot. Also, never assume that the PC is the only one with designs on the “big chairâ€, so other factions must also be dealt with and either allied or battled.
So, where does this leave things? Really, it hovers on the fact that both the player and the GM must be willing to engage the issue using the tools of the game. The player cannot simply manipulate the world because he/she decides it should be so, and the GM must likewise provide the opportunity to have the will of the PC challenged by the natural obstacles of the situation as to do otherwise would deny growth opportunities through adversity. It is not player v. GM, but rather PC v. NPCs in the spirit of the game and in the same way all other challenges are faced. The only major difference is that, in many intersession cases, the PC may be alone and unable to draw on the collective resources of the adventuring troupe as he/she would during normal play.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
While I personally agree with all your ideas, I believe that is primarily because our role-playing focus is very similar. We’re both interested in seeing a highly realistic and believable setting with which our characters can interact - which enhances the experience. I believe that the other player in question (and should he be reading this, he is welcome to correct me) is more interested in being a successful and “heroic” figure, without being forced to contemplate or suffer with the vagaries of “realism”. Which is not to impugn his preference as substandard in any way, merely different. The games we play almost always involve characters whose abilities greatly exceed our own, and if some players prefer to take this to the next level, who are we to argue?
That said - I’m not willing to completely discard “realism”, because it is that realism (within the fantasy world) that grounds the game for me, and I think I would be sacrificing my enjoyment for the game if I were to completely cede authorial control to the players. I believe that we have struck a meaningful harmony, in that you are willing to accept my input and direction in Naomi’s future, while I am more than willing to accept your ideas and goals as possible plot directions.
The more recent issue I have is Player A’s complaint against the other players regarding their ongoing distrust. He has made several points in the character’s general reform in the last few levels, and seems genuinely frustrated that his “new leaf” hasn’t earned effusive approbation from the other characters. Unfortunately, his “new leaf” has been unnecessarily hindered by the character’s extreme reticence, which basically forces the other players to judge him based on his actions alone, and he has the relatively large hindrance that the character was distinctly untrustworthy in the not-so-distant past. On the one hand, I can understand his frustration, because he hasn’t done anything that he considers truly heinous, and thus he should be given credit for his efforts. On the other hand, he outright refuses to see things from the other players’ perspectives.
Thus Player A’s issue is that not one of the other characters is willing to see his newfound “goodness”, but he is likewise unwilling to see that his actions may not be “good”, except by his own moral standards. He has repeatedly pointed out “good” actions, which should be accorded apposite approbation, but is completely unwilling to consider the possibility that the other characters may not see them as nearly so “good” as he believes. He also completely discounts any “evil” actions he has committed as unimportant, simply because his character doesn’t believe them to be so, while those “unimportant actions” may have quite extreme connotations assigned to them by other characters. In effect, it’s as if he believes that his character is due some special status, for no better reason than his own personal opinion.
While I have no particular issue with a little inter-party conflict (so long as it doesn’t impair the game), I do take a little issue with Player A’s stance. He has stated that he is playing his character “perfectly”, and if we are incapable of understanding that, then it is our failing. I disagree, because I believe it is the player’s responsibility to bring forth the character in such a way that he can be understood. Player A has numerous tools at his disposal to facilitate this, including the in-character diaries, inter-session play, or even elaborating on his motivations out-of-character during session play. He has taken advantage of none of these in recent memory, giving a variety of excuses. I wouldn’t even insist on his sharing this information with the other players, since they may not be privy to this information, but at the very least he should be keeping me in the loop, at least peripherally.
It sometimes seems as though this player has chosen to keep all of his character’s motivations to himself in order to prevent losing options and his illusion of control. So long as his goals and motivations are unknown, he can always manipulate and ret-con his actions into the best possible light in any given situation. As such, no one can really hold him to any of his decisions, and he can always claim the moral high-ground when and if he is confronted on a dubious judgement call.
Case in point: His character is incredibly cynical, and has gone out of his way to avoid any sort of NPC entanglements. In the game, he refused to have anything to do with a potential love interest, and after a while, another PC (Naomi) jumped at the potential relationship. Over time, this relationship has grown and blossomed into a really meaningful part of the ongoing plot. When originally putting the NPC into this position, I had planned to twist this relationship - drawing on the emotional connections that had been forged to bring forth a specific set of different emotions when the NPC was kidnapped and brutally experimented on, eventually turning on the PCs in combat. After this particular encounter, Player A intimated that Naomi had intentionally and willfully put the NPC at risk with their relationship, and that this was entirely her fault, and arguably an evil act. He also argued that his refusal to get involved was actually the best possible choice, and should be lauded as “good”.
Besides the relative rudeness of this blatant “I told you so”, what he fails to consider is that the relationship in question was A) good for the story, and B) a good thing for both the PC and the NPC involved. He neglects to consider that had Naomi not gotten involved with Kayli, not only would Naomi be a substantially different (and potentially less interesting) character, but it’s entirely possible that Kayli would be in no less danger, and it’s highly likely that she would not be nearly as content in her current life. It’s also worth pointing out that his character’s actions can only be considered “good” through his own rose-colored glasses. If the character’s intention in avoiding a romantic relationship with Kayli was motivated out of interests for her well-being, then he should have taken some exception to the obvious emotional connection forming between Naomi and Kayli. If he were truly interested only in Kayli’s safety, he would have made some sort of argument to Naomi - pointing out the potential dangers her relationship posed to all those around her; and when Kayli was actually abducted, he would have given significantly more zeal toward her rescue, instead of acting as though it were a pointless mission to aid a foolish teammate. Instead, however, he kept any such reservations or emotions purely to himself, which bespeaks an entirely different motive: he never really cared about Kayli’s safety, but rather about his own “freedom of action”. By not becoming involved, he doesn’t give up his illusion of control to the whims of chance. However, this particular motive is not in any way portrayable as “good”, so he uses the artifice of claiming Kayli’s best interests in order to give himself the appearance of noble motives.
However, the most compelling reason I can come up with is that the relationship between Naomi and Kayli was good for the story. In his adamant refusal to become involved in any sort of “entanglements” as he perceives them, he actively avoids being involved in the plot. In comparison, he is like the movie-goer at a horror-movie who continually points out the “flaws” in the movie, breaking the experience not only for himself, but for those around him.
June 21st, 2006 at 9:17 am
Masking selfish motives under the guise of benevolence seems to be stock in trade for this individual, along with overt plot detachment and general deniability of anything other than minuscule yet overblown acts of “goodâ€. (Mind that it seems everything that can be manipulated into being vaguely interpretable as “not completely and totally ‘evil’†seems to be billed as “goodâ€.) Always with the “look what I did for you guys!â€, which is really a very selective view on something he was doing for himself that just happened to benefit the group. I have yet to see even one thing that has been done in-game by this character that was wholly benevolent and without any hint of self-interest. Actually, I have not seen anything the entire campaign that was done with the welfare of the party or friendly NPCs factored in that did not first benefit him in some way.
Indeed, if he has played his character “perfectly†then I have to take the stand that every action and motive was also portrayed “perfectly†and were therefore interpreted by all around as stellar examples of what the subject character is. That is to say, everything was presented in the best possible light without any need for explanation or clarification of any kind, and as intended. Also, since the characters have been together for around a year, they have a pretty solid picture of each other and it would take a significant series of events to change that point of view. While I have no idea of any such change in the character, any “new leaf†would have to be substantial and consistent from this point forward to have any meaningful impact as we are way past the point where a character is “good†because he/she tells the troupe it is so. A turd wrapped in shiny paper with a pretty ribbon is still a turd.
I wholly agree that the GM (you) should be very aware of the characters’ motivations throughout all phases of the game. If not, how then can any player expect to have any sort of meaningful interaction with the game world? One could conclude that, if the player has no desire to keep the GM in the loop about the motivations and impressions of the character, then that player also has no desire to be involved in the game beyond the bare mechanics. My sense is that the player is trying to play “against†the GM, and is doing everything possible to hedge by not providing anything that could later be used against him. He seems to feel that leaving openings by being completely non-committal in every aspect save his self-interest is the best way to ensure he can escape to fight another day.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:31 am
I’m afraid that I must agree that I have yet to see any of his actions as lacking a decidedly self-interested motive. In virtually every case of his “look what I did for you!” rants, his own benefits often outweigh those to the group, and when they do not, the risks involved with his “self-sacrifice” were minimal. Thus it truly seems (without the benefit of some sort of inner monologue from the character in question) that he is merely acting in his own self-interest, or to garner some measure of trust from the rest of the party. Unfortunately, given the character’s past, such calculated attempts at earning trust are almost necessarily doomed to failure, for the rest of the party can easily see that any such garnered trust is likely to be used against them in the future, when it serves the character’s purpose.
As for the assertion that his character is being played “perfectly”, it only stands to reason that he must accept the consequences of his “perfect” portrayal. The character is indeed cynical and likes to live in the “gray area” - both traits which have been accurately portrayed but neither of which engenders trust. I also find it somewhat disconcerting that despite the numerous (and sometimes radical) ret-cons which have altered the character’s direction, his personality seems largely untouched. Perhaps this is merely an aspect of the character, as his emotions are so tightly under control that he never shows any change, regardless of circumstances. But it seems just as plausible that the player sees no need to change his “optimal strategy” for winning the game, and the underlying circumstances are merely a mechanical means to an end.
I must also agree that I feel that my interactions with this player have been strongly adversarial - no matter which side of the GM screen I’m on. When I’m the GM, I feel as though his actions and goals are to prevent my “messing with his character”, rather than any attempt to interact with the game world or NPCs in a meaningful way. As a player in his campaigns, I’ve often felt that in some circumstances, no matter what I do, there is absolutely no way to change the outcome. A perfect case-in-point was our recent short-term campaign, in which our players encounted his “pet NPC” - the NPC wanted an item that was in our possession, and I felt as though it didn’t matter what we did, the NPC would end up with that item somehow. So I chose to circumvent the painful struggle which would end in our eventual defeat and simply hand over the item.
While I suppose I can understand this type of interaction, growing as it does from more traditional games - I can’t really understand its appeal. The GM is capable of winning every engagement with the players without even making an effort. Thus “winning” as the GM has no meaning - you hold near-infinite power, and can win simply be dictum. I suppose “winning” against the GM has some meaning, if only because you managed not to piss off the GM into using his nigh-infinite power to crush you utterly, or (if you’re particularly cocky) because you managed to defeat the GM despite his having nigh-infinite power. But what if the GM you’re opposing doesn’t see you as his opposition? Can you really claim victory in such a case? It’s like a 90-lb. weakling lording over his victory in a wrestling match with the world’s strongest man, simply because the heavyweight decided to walk away.
June 21st, 2006 at 9:21 pm
If one looks at RPGs in terms of “winning” or “losing”, that person should not be playing RPGs at all. Instead, mayhap Monopoly, Risk, or Axis and Allies is more his speed? Those games have a definite beginning and end, a quantifiable condition of victory, and none require any participation beyond the mechanics of the game. Also, while there is no room really for bullying the other players with impunity using neigh-godly NPCs, there is likewise no chance that the actions of other characters will have any story-based implications to deal with.
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:18 am
There I disagree - RPGs do indeed have “victory conditions”, despite the numerous “intro text” examples to the contrary, the difference is that those conditions are not strictly defined or quantifiable. Thus every RPG player must define his own victory conditions - which is where we currently have a breakdown in our gaming group. Your definition of “winning” more closely matches mine, while the other player has distinctly different and often conflicting conditions. Given my (admittedly limited) experience playing other games (with more quantifiable and defined victory conditions) with this player, I don’t think he would find any greater satisfaction with them. When we played Diplomacy, he was perfectly willing to alter his chosen victory conditions to suit his situation - instead of pursuing the true victory, he chose to sacrifice his position for the sake of another (weaker) player in order to achieve a victory over those players he felt were more worthy opponents. Despite the fact that the game was not concluded, he continued to assert that he had “succeeded” against those stronger players, even though his own position was arguably much weaker. In this way, despite the fact that he was playing a game with quantifiable and well-defined victory conditions, he still chose to draw upon the RPG’s flexible victory conditions to define his goals.
The defining characteristics of this player’s style (in my observation) is his desire to succeed and his adversarial stance against the other players (GM included). He wants to be “better” - whether by creating a replacement character that exceeds an existing character in every aspect, by showing his superiority by not becoming embroiled in plots against his will, or by demonstrating his character’s total dominance over NPCs. And this is where the division lies - we both prefer a cooperative and synergistic playstyle - where the GM and player work together to provide a more meaningful and detailed experience. I believe that is also why I tend to prefer Naomi as a character - when I expend effort building Naomi’s connection to the plot, I find that effort magnified and returned to me, helping me create and enhance the campaign. But when I put forth effort working with this player’s character, I typically find that energy reflected back at me in a hostile manner - such that it’s in my best interest to cease putting forth any energy.
The incompatibility is one of style and preference of play - and based on my interpretation of the GNS essays, I’d argue that you and I are primarily Narrativist/Simulationist (though I’ll admit to my own Gamist tendencies), while the other player is strongly Gamist. Also based on those articles, it’s easy to see that Gamism will tend to dominate and override the other styles unless forbidden, which would most likely end in the dissolution of the group. I consider it highly unlikely that we will be able to “educate” our Gamist friend to better appreciate our style, any more than he will be able to convince us of the superiority of his own style. The question to be answered thus becomes: Are we willing to continue putting up with the tension and conflict in gaming styles, or are we ready to seek new players with more similar interests?
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 am
I did qualify terms of victory with the other types of game as “quantifiable condition[s] of victory”. I did not mean to imply that RPGs don’t have any sort of “win”, only that such a “win” is highly subjective and wholly from the players’ POV, and definitely not in the rules as “meet this x,y,z and you win, game over.” In the case of this player, amassing the ability to completely trounce the other characters (and players), or a huge attempt to make the players believe that he took it in the shorts on purpose just to exert his control over them, seems to be a “victory†to him in any case, and in any game.
As for the option of whether to continue or not, I am at least willing to continue as-is until the conclusion of this part of the campaign. After that, I suppose I will have to see. I definitely don’t want to get into the habit of changing campaigns over and over, or playing a series of one-shots just to allow people to socialize and obsess over mechanics while trying to make the next, baddest character. Denver is a big town, and I believe that I can always find a group that is willing to get into the aspects of the game that I like…