Okay so this is an old topic, 17 years old in fact, but still worth a bit of talk. Sett linked to this article by Allen Varney* in one of his numerous "story longing/hate" threads. So what I will do is post a section which I think is a good starting point and you folks take it from there. Here goes.

QuoteYes. A setting's morality lies in the actions it makes available to the Pcs.

[/I]

Keep this in mind:

Quote``Morality'' here doesn't mean one particular moral agenda. I don't say every RPG should advocate, for instance, trade surpluses or Zoroastrianism or safe use of strawberry ice cream. ``Morality,'' in this case, means any reasonably coherent viewpoint about behavior, a sense that some actions are right and others are wrong, and a willingness to assert that view.

So the designer should have an agenda. Its details are a matter of choice, and open to discussion by the players.

[/I]

* http://www.allenvarney.com/av_morality.html

Regards,
David R

Is there a question here?

I have to feed the dogs right off, but I'll fire off a thought before a go. Ready for my assertion/take?

The implicit mode of play of RPG is somewhat immoral. That is, if the average player saw what the average character does in an RPG, they would be offended/shocked. Without specific effort to shape character action, there is an implicit disconnect between player and character, an inability to empathize with fantastic victims of their actions, and lack of gravity regarding possible consequences of their action in the fantasy world in which they live.

In short, the natural state of an RPG character is a bit like Thomas Covenant.

Now that may or may not be equivalent to the link/quote, but that's my take on it.

the whole "kill things and take their stuff" is totally immoral.  imagine that shit IRL.  someone pisses you off, so you waste them, then roll the corpse, then leave!  very GTA.  then again, the "law" IRL (or in any modern or SF) is far more likely to react with the appropriate lethality.

of course i'm assuming inflated hp, d&d wise for fantasy, results in auras of invincibility

My batch of players "Do The Right Thing"  (much more than Mookie ever did. )

The Third Imperium may not always be "happy" with what they do, and Pirates of the spaceways might not like it either - but the average Merchant crew LIKES the Maggie's Marauders crew being organizers on their behalf.

In my BANESTORM campaign, the players were trying to help end the Caithness Civil War decisively and in Conall's favor. They were also trying to hide their new friend from the Wizards Council and the Ministry of Serendipity.

- Ed C.

I do not think a setting should have a morality; but it's reasonable that cultures and individuals in that setting should have a morality. That is, the morality should not be hardwired into the setting, since that limits the gameplay you can get from it. Some people are happy with the limits, enjoying doing things within those limits. Mario Bros handheld games come to mind.

For me, the whole point of rpgs is that you're not limited to dealing with some particular issue, and that issue in the way someone else thinks is good. If you're so restricted, why not just watch a telly show or read a book? The point of roleplaying is that the players and characters have choices. The choices are not meaningful if they're forced on them by the setting itself; they are meaningful if the culture or NPCs have morality and respond to the PCs.

If "a setting's morality lies in the actions it makes available to the PCs", then I would say that a setting should have no morality; all actions - by which Varney obviously means "choices" should be available to the PCs.

"The issue is the designer's attitude toward the material, and the kind of experience the design tries to create for the players. A coherent moral viewpoint strengthens most adventures, because..."

No. A coherent moral viewpoint, hardwired into the setting, weakens a campaign. A campaign belongs to the game group, not the game designer. The game designer is not the GM, still less the players.

The game designer should have no agenda other than providing a resource which they think will help people have a successful game session - a game session which is some combination of fun and fulfilling. It's not the game designer's place to tell other people how to live, or what sort of game to have.

Varney's example of Twilight: 2000 is a telling one. It certainly advocates no coherent moral viewpoint. Those players who didn't treat it just as a tactical wargame, a very common thing which came up was, "what are you willing to do?" Would they take fuel, food or ammo from civilians? Would they bother fighting on, or just try to get home? If they found a fellow soldier mistreating a civilian, what would they do? And so on. By the writers of the game taking no moral viewpoint, they left the players of the game free to decide whether or not to include such issues, and if they did, what to deal with.

"In the craft of game design, attention to morality improves adventures."

No, it doesn't. Again: forcing the morality restricts play, and a good game design is one which allows for a variety of playstyles. Otherwise it's just your wanky homebrew game. The game designer should present a setting which can have moral issues, or can ignore them, as the group wishes. That was Twilight: 2000.

The purpose of roleplaying games is entertainment, that is - fun and fulfilment. The purpose of roleplaying games is not for the game designer to give us a moral lesson. I've already got a rabbi.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"In the craft of game design, attention to morality improves adventures."

No, it doesn't. Again: forcing the morality restricts play, and a good game design is one which allows for a variety of playstyles. Otherwise it's just your wanky homebrew game. The game designer should present a setting which can have moral issues, or can ignore them, as the group wishes. That was Twilight: 2000.

The purpose of roleplaying games is entertainment, that is - fun and fulfilment. The purpose of roleplaying games is not for the game designer to give us a moral lesson. I've already got a rabbi.

I disagree that
1) restricting play necessarily makes for a poor game or a poor game design
2) restricting valid play options is necessarily to be equated to a moral lesson. There are (multiple) possible goals and outcomes from such rules.

RPGs are necessarily a group activity. Like many other group activities, there is often difficulty when there is not a shared understanding of what is acceptable and what is not.

In the venue of an RPG, it could be (citing a real recent example from one of my games) that one player is comfortable with graphic depictions of torture but the remainder are not. If the player had a better understanding of what the group at large considered acceptable or enjoyable, then the group as a whole would have had a better experience (even the player involved was a little disturbed at the event in retrospect.)

It all goes back to social contract, yo.

You're talking about the game group restricting play options. That's fine, and helps people have fun and fulfilling sessions.

This bloke Varney is talking about the game designer restricting play options. That's stupid, and will make for a game with limited appeal.

To appeal to the broadest range of tastes, the game itself should not take a moral stance. However, if the game group decides to play their characters in a moral or amoral manner, then it should be up to the GM to decide how that morality (or lack thereof) affects the game.

It should be noted that there is a certain appeal to vicarious lawbreaking in games, simply because people tend to be law-abiding IRL. Hell, just about every early CT adventure was based on the Ethically Challenged Merchant.

I'm hardly qualified to speak with expertise either on game design or morality, but I will say this:  I would never want to game with a group that needed the game to tell the players the difference between right and wrong.  I'll cheerily play a game where the PCs are all repugnant bastards, but only so long as I can tell that the players all know that the PCs are all repugnant bastards.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou're talking about the game group restricting play options. That's fine, and helps people have fun and fulfilling sessions.

Well I guess we're not in major disagreement then.

QuoteThis bloke Varney is talking about the game designer restricting play options. That's stupid, and will make for a game with limited appeal.

No game has unlimited appeal.

To me this is just another quality of a game to shop for if you want it, and avoid if you don't.

And I can't imagine that many others actually seek out or enjoy the sort of escapades I typically want to avoid, so I can't think this is an eccentric taste in games. Of course, some may prefer to handle this at the informal group contract level, but I don't think those who are in such a contract would typically be put off by such mechanisms.

I prefer it when games give me the tools to encourage or discourage given modes of. Spycraft 2.0, for example, has a reputation system that penalizes agents that breaks agency codes of conduct, etc. Which reputation penalties apply, however, is totally up to the GM. (Though there are some defaults and by and large I agree with them. The defaults basically discourage PVP play, sadistic behavior, or harming innocents.)

the things you mention from spycraft are fine examples of assigned morality in play.  they're not restrictions, just penalties, and ones that are understandable given the milieu.  a similar thing would be the karma loss for killing in MSH FASERIP.  and that's cool, too.  there's nothing telling you that you can't do something immoral, just reactions if you do such things.  

but if a similar mechanic appeared say, in traveller, i'd discard it in a second.  it doesn't fit my image of how the 3rd imperium would go.

Personally I think Varney doesn't get the distinction you're making, Kyle, between morality of a setting and morality of the the societies within the setting.

The Reputation system in Spycraft sounds like a mechanical representation of morality within the setting.

The Karma system in Marvel Super Heroes (based on reading a summary) is more like the morality of a setting.

Generally I like there to be morality in a setting since it reinforces a sense of verisimilitude, grounds character actions and provides a more interesting landscape through which to maneuver. I think based on Varney's contrasting of Dark Conspiracy with Twilight 2000, he basically sees morality of a setting in terms of establishing the key conflict and placing the PCs firmly on one side. If that's what he means I can take it or leave it. I find thematic quests rather boring; episodic missions on the other hand are kind of interesting. Funny, huh?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNo game has unlimited appeal.

To me this is just another quality of a game to shop for if you want it, and avoid if you don't.

Sure. But the problem is that the quality of having a moral viewpoint hardwired into the game, or not - that's not always going to be clear from browsing through it at a game store. And let's be honest, most people who buy games buy them on impulse, or on the recommendation of a friend. They don't read reviews and online discussions of the thing to find otu what it's like. They just flip through the pages, then buy it.

That sort of browse-through won't tell them about the game's moral viewpoint, if any. So when the gamer gets the book home and reads through it, they may get an unpleasant surprise. Buying a game for its lack of moral viewpoint hardwired in and then finding it has one, that's a nasty surprise. It'd be like buying what you thought was Fudge and then coming home and finding it was Hero.

The major defining qualities and nature of a game should be apparent on a browse-through. There shouldn't be any unpleasant surprises about the nature of the game. Details of it, sure. The way it comes out in play, fair enough. But the basic nature of it, whether it has a moral viewpoint hardwired in or not - that should be obvious. And really it's hard to make it obvious. Moral viewpoints are something which only come out over time, as you see how the game plays out.

Really, my personal objection to moral viewpoints hardwired into the game is that it's game designer railroading. We don't like it when the GM does it, why would we like it when a game designer tries it? Fuck him. I didn't sign up for the Magical Story Tour. If I just want to watch things happen, I'll turn on the tv. I game to do things, to have choices. I don't game for moral lessons.

So if somemone wants to write a game like that, fair enough I suppose - but they should advertise it in that way, make it obvious it's like that. And usually they don't - because if they tell the thing has got moral lessons, who'd buy it? They have to sneak it in.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI prefer it when games give me the tools to encourage or discourage given modes of. Spycraft 2.0, for example, has a reputation system that penalizes agents that breaks agency codes of conduct, etc. Which reputation penalties apply, however, is totally up to the GM.

And that's a good way to do things. The game gives the GM and players options, and those options allow them to make choices in the session, and have their choices affect the outcome. That's what a game is all about - my choices affect the outcome.