This is a debate thread, for myself and TonyLB.

The topic is "Do players have any specific respsonsibility to one another?", though I'm going to ask Tony to state his position first, so that he can be nice and clear on position (which might be a little at variance with the topic stated).

So, Tony, does a count of twenty posts, total, sound good for you?

Sounds fine, though I certainly don't think that the first "stage-setting" post should count against your total.

My take on the question:  People have intrinsic obligations to each other, which they carry in from society.  Not shooting each other in the face is an obligation.  Even if we're playing Russian Roulette, the fact that it's a game and we're all volunteers does not make it cool.  We're obligated not to kill each other.  These are obligations that people cannot choose to absolve each other from.

There are other obligations which we carry in, and which people can choose to absolve us from.  You'd probably think "Hey, it's not cool to grab someone, throw them to the ground and then try to choke them into unconsciousness," but once you get into martial arts you realize "Hey, there are circumstances in which people can absolve each other of the obligation to avoid that behavior ... between consenting adults in a well-communicated structure, that kind of violence can be damn cool."  These are obligations which exist by default that people can choose to absolve each other from.

And then there are additional obligations that get created in the course of a game.  We agree to play by the rules, for instance.  If you agree to that then lying about what numbers come up on the dice is not cool ... even though, in the larger context of society, nobody gives a rats ass whether you faithfully and honestly report the value on a die.  These are additional obligations which we take on by choice.

Now what obligations fit in which category?  That area gets hairy and opinionated.


H'okay.  That's a lot of yammering to set the stage.  Here's my experience on competition, player-vs.-player conflict, character-vs-character conflict and all that jazz:  I see a lot of people saying that players are obligated to protect the interests of other players.  I see a lot of people saying that an action which reduces the fun of another player is always wrong.

So, where does that come from?  That's what I wonder about.

Is it consciously added by the rules?  Well, some rules, sure.  But not many.  Sure as hell not all.  Unless D&D has changed a whole big bunch since I last played, there's nothing in there that says that you aren't allowed to have your thief backstab the living hell out of that pushy elf in a dark 10'x10' corridor.

Is it a universal obligation which players cannot absolve me from?  Am I a bad and anti-social person for playing a game where people compete and disagree, even if everyone agrees on that game?  Aw hell no.  I can point to an unlimited number of examples (including almost all sports) that work on this model and everyone's cool with it.

Those two are easy to dismiss.  Maybe I've missed something in the arguments for those, but unless you (Levi) want to take it up and champion it, I'm not going to worry about it.

The point that I will ... well ... pointedly disagree with is the position that people usually retreat to when I start knocking down the extremes.  It goes, roughly, "The obligation to treat each other nicely, and to be supportive, is laid upon us by the nature of our being friends.  It is an obligation which we can, as friends, consciously choose to absolve each other from.  Therefore, if you want to play a competitive game, that's cool ... so long as you get everyone's conscious, clearly-communicated sign-off first.  Until you have that sign-off, the obligation still exists, and you have to live by it."  They are saying, essentially, that competition is acceptable but cooperation is the default.

Okay ... I don't think that's a strawman position.  In fact, it's pretty damn strong.  I mean, Levi, you'll have your own position, which may or may not intersect this one.  I don't want to frame your arguments for you.  This is just where I've been reacting off of in past thinking on the subject.

I disagree with the position above.  I do not think that the spectrum and population of roleplaying is so utterly dominated by non-competitive, cooperative play that it forms a default to which I need to be morally bound one way or the other.

Playing the thief, I am not morally obligated to avoid backstabbing the elf.

Playing the elf, I am not morally obligated to be a good sport about the knife in the back.

Until a new obligation is explicitly encoded into the game, anything is equally legitimate.

We can get pissed off at each other without anyone being in the wrong, or having violated our (vague and incomplete) social contract.  That might be a good sign that we should sit down and figure out what the hell sort of game we want to play, so that in future we'll both be on the same page.



Now this is separate from the question of whether violent disagreement and heavy competition can produce "good stuff" for whatever definition of "good stuff."  Do you want to get into that issue as well?

I'll start here; and sure, we can skip that first post of mine.

Quote from: TonyLBI do not think that the spectrum and population of roleplaying is so utterly dominated by non-competitive, cooperative play that it forms a default to which I need to be morally bound one way or the other.

Playing the thief, I am not morally obligated to avoid backstabbing the elf.

Playing the elf, I am not morally obligated to be a good sport about the knife in the back.

Until a new obligation is explicitly encoded into the game, anything is equally legitimate.

Okay.  Here's my position:

I believe that in any roleplaying exercise, game or otherwise, the default model is cooperative (though I'm almost tempted to say collaborative) and a roleplaying game where this is not the case is responsible for finding ways to make it work otherwise.

Further, I believe that the reason that this is so is that a cooperative atmosphere foster creativity.  Collaborative creativity and cooperation are linked; to unlink them requires effort.

D&D, as an example, does not make the effort to 'unlink' those things.  Therefore, since the game expects a degree of collaboration (with distict roles for player and DM, mind, but still a form of collaboration), the default is one of cooperation.

Amber, as the contrary example, also expects a form of collaborative creativity.  But it is explicitly competitive, and does make an effort (a successful one, to my thinking) to seperate things out so that this is possible, in discussion of "who can say what and how".

Cooperation is not a requirement.  But I argue that it is a default, and a strong one, for those reasons.

QuoteNow this is separate from the question of whether violent disagreement and heavy competition can produce "good stuff" for whatever definition of "good stuff."  Do you want to get into that issue as well?

Sure.  Show me your position.

Well, good that you're willing to get into that second thing, because I pretty much have to now.

I think that a competitive atmosphere fosters creativity as well.  "Collaboration" I don't really know about ... probably depends upon how you're going to define it.  Are two opposing sports team "collaborating" when, through their determined efforts against each other, they create a thrilling nail-biter of a game?  Dunno.

Setting aside the "collaboration" thing:  If your goal is to get together and combine the inputs of many people in order to create an end product of an engaging and entertaining game then I believe that competition is just as well suited for that goal as cooperation is.

I guess I don't get what you mean when you say that collaboration and cooperation are "linked."  Do you think that cooperation is inherently better suited for that goal?  Or is there a goal to collaboration that is above and beyond combining your creativity in order to create an engaging and entertaining game?  Or ... something else?

Quote from: TonyLBI guess I don't get what you mean when you say that collaboration and cooperation are "linked."  Do you think that cooperation is inherently better suited for that goal?  Or is there a goal to collaboration that is above and beyond combining your creativity in order to create an engaging and entertaining game?  Or ... something else?

Take a look at a improv theatre, which is certainly a form of roleplaying, where the rule of improv is "yes, and..." - that's enforced cooperation.  And it necessarily leads to creative output; anything you do must be accepted and brought into the whole, somehow.  It is collaborative because of that "And" - people will build off of the ideas that the others throw out there.  

(Note, now, I'm not arguing that this specific rule is a good one for RPGs - improv has the active, powerful control of "If you make up something crappy, the audience will make sure you know it.)

Collaboration in an RPG, to my mind, comes in the form of an amalgam; someone tosses something out there, and people build on it because it is generally agreed that this, usually with a leader thrown in, is the basic method by which a group creates things.

Now, it's certainly possible to invert that, in a competitive game - someone tosses something out there, and you build on it because that's how you work towards winning under the rules.

But for that to work, I think, you need those rules.  

And you need a group willing to step off from that basic point, a group convinced that what you're doing will be fun.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNow, it's certainly possible to invert that, in a competitive game - someone tosses something out there, and you build on it because that's how you work towards winning under the rules.

Just to get my terms straight ... is that "collaboration" as you've been discussing it?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut for that to work, I think, you need those rules.

Sure, I'll buy that.

In order for cooperative roleplaying to work, you need the rules for that, too.  You cool with that?

Quote from: TonyLBJust to get my terms straight ... is that "collaboration" as you've been discussing it?

As I mean it, yes.

Quote from: TonyLBIn order for cooperative roleplaying to work, you need the rules for that, too.  You cool with that?

You need a consensus, yes.

But I'm arguing that the consensus needed for coopoerative roleplaying is intuitive; for the most part, it already exists.  

I've sat down with a pack of kids (an average age of seven years old), described characters to them, and we just made shit up, back and forth, with them talking about the actions of those characters and me talking about the world.  

In this case, their acceptance of my basic leadership supplied all the rules needs that existed.

I think that this kind of cooperative creativity, applying to all sorts of stuff,  is almost built-in, whether it's cultural, standard human gear, or whatever it is.

Okay.  I'll buy that too.  Consensus on some level is very easy for folks.  It's built into the human psyche.

You know there's a sting, right?

The skills required to turn consensus into something that consistently produces an engaging, entertaining story are not very easy.  They're insanely difficult.  I can go to any place where people discuss their play and find you a dozen instances of folks asking for theory and craft that concentrates on exactly those issues:  "How do I deal with someone who wants to hog the spotlight?"  "How do I get past disagreement about X, Y or Z?"  "Steve says he's enjoying the game, but I get the sense that he's actually feeling crowded and stressed, what can I do?" and so on and so on.

So now, the inevitable comparison:  Competition on some leve is very easy for folks.  It's built into the human psyche.  You see kids get together and form a consensus naturally.  That's cool.  I see it too.  I also see kids come together and very naturally get competitive.  Both capabilities are natural.

As you've said, there are skills required to turn competition into something that consistently produces an engaging, entertaining story.  They are not as intuitive as all that.  But I came into this debate not yet convinced that they're any harder than the skills of consensus.  And while I'm open to being convinced, I haven't seen an argument from you yet that compares the two.  So far we've had "Basic consensus is easy, advanced competition is hard," which (while true) doesn't really convince me of much in any apples-to-apples way.

In fact, I'll go beyond that.  Assume people who are completely unfamiliar with roleplaying.  They have no training, as yet, in the skills that support either the cooperative or the competitive model of play.  Here's my claim:  Apples-to-apples, for the same basic level of engagement and entertainment, it is easier to train someone to play competitively than it is to train them to play cooperatively.  It is an easier skill-set.  I don't have a first principles argument for that, but it accords with my experience in training non-gamers.  Take that for what it's worth.


Now, because we're trying to pack a lot into twenty posts, I'm going to take the liberty of predicting a response that seems (to me) pretty likely.  "But Tony!  You're flying in the face of actual experience!  Many people find it hugely easier to play cooperative games than competitive.  Competitive games throw them for an awful loop."

Absolutely.  There's no denying that, you can observe it anywhere.  My argument is that many people have already absorbed the skills of forming consensus in a game to the point where they no longer require conscious attention.  That's great.  But, predictably, it makes them think of games that are cooperative as easy, and games that are competitive as hard.

And y'know what?  There are plenty of people who have internalized the rules of competitive games, and who find it hard to shift to a cooperative paradigm.  I meet them all the time.  You have perhaps heard of the creatures called the "munchkin" and the "power-gamer."  They're not uncommon and they are not inherently wrong (although often people on both sides of the divide have crummy social skills and do stupid things that I find repellant ... they can certainly be wrong and stupid for other related reasons).

Now, obviously, I'm biased (or perhaps merely opinionated) towards a certain way of perceiving these things.  But man, I see these two sides as being more symmetrical than not.  The folks who function easily in a cooperative paradigm would really rather believe that cooperation is the default.  The folks who function easily in a competitive paradigm would really rather believe that competition is the default.  Can you blame either side?

But since both of them are heavily represented in the hobby, both of them comprise a full and robust set of skills, and both of them can lead with equal ease to quality gaming, I don't see what difference there is between them that makes an argument that one should be the moral standard, and one should be an aberration only permitted under special circumstances.  To my mind they're both equally valid until your individual group comes down on one side or the other and sets the terms for your game.

Quote from: TonyLBSo now, the inevitable comparison:  Competition on some leve is very easy for folks.  It's built into the human psyche.  You see kids get together and form a consensus naturally.  That's cool.  I see it too.  I also see kids come together and very naturally get competitive.  Both capabilities are natural.

When they get competitive, are they creating fiction?

Not "good story" - just fiction.  As a kid myself, I helped the Autobots raid any number of evil Decepticon plans, ruining those beyond measure.  We made fiction, by collaborating.  Also as a kid, I played games like tag - inherently competitive stuff.  But these games didn't create fiction.

RPGs are require the participants to create fiction.  Not necessarily story, 'good' or otherwise.  But fiction.  I don't see groups naturally creating fiction competitively anywhere.  I do see them creating it collaboratively.

Can you point to any form of fairly spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction?

Quote from: TonyLBApples-to-apples, for the same basic level of engagement and entertainment, it is easier to train someone to play competitively than it is to train them to play cooperatively.  It is an easier skill-set.  I don't have a first principles argument for that, but it accords with my experience in training non-gamers.  Take that for what it's worth.

I can accept that it's easier - but I will ask this: In this training, how much actual roleplay is occurring, and how "deep" of a kind are we talking about?

For my puposes, "really, ridiculously deep" roleplay would be like the strange forms of method acting, where you try to 'become' your character, starve yourelf for a role, odd stuff like that.

The other extreme being "shallow", is more like where a kid shouts the 'lines' of the toy that they're holding in-hand on the other.

(Those are crappy terms, but I think they're good enough for this discussion.  If we want to talk more about this later, we might want better ones).

Quotemoral standard

I don't think of this as a moral standard.  Just as a default-in-fact.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCan you point to any form of fairly spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction?

This is where, were we doing this face to face, we'd have a long painful silence while I stared at you like you were from another planet.  We may have come to a fundamental divide in our experience that explains the fundamental divide in our derived philosophies.

Yes, I see spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction all the time.  "I'm a shark, and I'm going to eat you up!"  "Oh yeah, well this couch is a pirate ship, and sharks have to stay in the water!  Now I'm shooting cannon at you!  BOOM!  BOOM!"  "I'm eating a hole in your boat!"  "Oh no!  My boat is sinking!  Daddy, save me!"  "I'm eating you up!  Yum yum yum!"  "You win!  Now I'm gonna be the shark!"  "Eeek!  A shark!"

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI can accept that it's easier - but I will ask this: In this training, how much actual roleplay is occurring, and how "deep" of a kind are we talking about?

Well, I had a mother and daughter ask me to explain roleplaying to them ... they were passing by a convention, and wanted to know what all the hoo-hah was about.  Rather than give them a boring half-hour lecture about generalities I just ran my demo for them.  Within ten minutes (this is not a joke, my ten minute demo is timed and consistent) the mother was cackling with villainous glee over her daughter-hero's failure to stop the necro-bomb that was about to destroy Milennium City, while the daughter was doing the whole Kirby thing, gritting her teeth and hissing "Can't ... fail ... now ... millions in the balance!"

This is pretty much par for the course introducing new gamers to competitive gaming (although the convention context compressed the time-scale and makes a nice story).  So ... yeah.  My answer here is "pretty damn deep."  Let me reiterate:  Competitive play fosters creativity.  I'm not just saying that.  I'm serious about it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI don't think of this as a moral standard.  Just as a default-in-fact.

I think (for all the reasons I outlined in my first post) that claiming that something is the default is making a claim that it is a moral standard.  If you're not making that claim (not claiming, in short, that there is an obligation to play cooperative unless you've gotten permission to play competitive) then why are we even talking about the default?

Seriously ... I'm halfway through my posts.  I don't want to waste them debating something that you don't think is important to the question at hand.  Give me a hand up here:  What's the important thing that makes you feel that we're obligated to be cooperative?  If "cooperation as default" isn't what gets you excited then let's dump that and talk about the stuff that does.

p.s.  This is a cool talk!  I'm glad we're doing this.

Quote from: TonyLBThis is where, were we doing this face to face, we'd have a long painful silence while I stared at you like you were from another planet.  We may have come to a fundamental divide in our experience that explains the fundamental divide in our derived philosophies.

Yes, I see spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction all the time.  "I'm a shark, and I'm going to eat you up!"  "Oh yeah, well this couch is a pirate ship, and sharks have to stay in the water!  Now I'm shooting cannon at you!  BOOM!  BOOM!"  "I'm eating a hole in your boat!"  "Oh no!  My boat is sinking!  Daddy, save me!"  "I'm eating you up!  Yum yum yum!"  "You win!  Now I'm gonna be the shark!"  "Eeek!  A shark!"

Huh.

Now, I could spend time playing dumb semantic games for the sake of debate.  I think I'll skip those, and just say:

Yeah, that looks competitive, though it's not what I normally think of as "competitive" when I use the word.  It also looks collaborative, to me, in the sense of "building on what the other person is saying".

Weird.

I'm thinking that it's more complicated than we've been pretending, here, but those complications are of a specific sort that I can't actually explain.  Know what I mean?

Quote from: TonyLBI think (for all the reasons I outlined in my first post) that claiming that something is the default is making a claim that it is a moral standard.

Is 'being polite' a moral standard?  

I mean, I consider it valuable, but not a question of morality.

Quote from: TonyLBp.s.  This is a cool talk!  I'm glad we're doing this.

Yah, very much.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYeah, that looks competitive, though it's not what I normally think of as "competitive" when I use the word.  It also looks collaborative, to me, in the sense of "building on what the other person is saying".

Weird.

I'm thinking that it's more complicated than we've been pretending, here, but those complications are of a specific sort that I can't actually explain.  Know what I mean?

Well, I don't know for sure what you mean, but I think I know how you feel, if that means anything.

Yeah, I think it's more complex than "Should you play competitive or play cooperative?"  I'm going to try to dig into that complexity a little.  If I don't return, send girl scouts to the rescue.  At least then I'll have cookies.

Cooperation and competition are polar opposites, like love and hate.  However, also like love and hate, they are not mutually exclusive.  You can have both operating at the same time.

Indeed, competition seems to require at least rudimentary cooperation.  You can't get two baseball teams together to play unless they can agree on the field they're playing on.  And you certainly can't get two teams together to play until they can agree on what sport they're playing.

That's why the "collaboration" word grabbed my interest, earlier in this thread.  It sounded to me like that stuff that any group must do in order to have a game go off (agree on rules, pick a venue, build on the past of the game to create the future).  The question of how/whether that is inherently linked to other "cooperative" traits (working together as a team, not taking advantage of weakness, not benefitting yourself at the expense of others, etc.) seems pretty central.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIs 'being polite' a moral standard?  

I mean, I consider it valuable, but not a question of morality.

I don't know where you're going with this, so I'll just answer.  No, there is no moral obligation to be polite.


Side note:  I am captivated by the things hiding behind this quote:

Quote from: Levi Kornelsenit's not what I normally think of as "competitive" when I use the word.

Can we have a separate little track ... non-debating, purely informative, where you tell me what you normally think of when you use the word?  I don't want to argue about it, I just honestly want to know.

Quote from: TonyLBCooperation and competition are polar opposites, like love and hate.  However, also like love and hate, they are not mutually exclusive.  You can have both operating at the same time.

Agreed.

Quote from: TonyLBIndeed, competition seems to require at least rudimentary cooperation.  You can't get two baseball teams together to play unless they can agree on the field they're playing on.  And you certainly can't get two teams together to play until they can agree on what sport they're playing.

I think I object to the word 'rudimentary' there.  Real, enjoyable competition occurs after cooperative elements have been decided and internalized.  That's some pretty complicated shit, to my way of thinking, even if it does occur pretty naturally in many cases.

But, otherwise, yeah.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's why the "collaboration" word grabbed my interest, earlier in this thread.  It sounded to me like that stuff that any group must do in order to have a game go off (agree on rules, pick a venue, build on the past of the game to create the future).  The question of how/whether that is inherently linked to other "cooperative" traits (working together as a team, not taking advantage of weakness, not benefitting yourself at the expense of others, etc.) seems pretty central.

1. You must cooperate to collaborate.

2. You must collaborate to create things in play.

3. Neither of those first two neccessarily denies competition.

Yes?  No?

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know where you're going with this, so I'll just answer.  No, there is no moral obligation to be polite.

Right.  I think of cooperative play the same way.  It's not a moral obligiation, but it is a social lubricant.  If you discard it, you get a significant chunk of responsibility for what happens next.

Quote from: TonyLBSide note:  I am captivated by the things hiding behind this quote:Can we have a separate little track ... non-debating, purely informative, where you tell me what you normally think of when you use the word?  I don't want to argue about it, I just honestly want to know.

To me, normally, when I use competitive, I mean one side wins, one side loses, though there can be reversals along the way, and often where it is accepted that complete victory or loss ends play.  The play that you described doesn't seem to have any significant "loss" involved.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI think I object to the word 'rudimentary' there.  Real, enjoyable competition occurs after cooperative elements have been decided and internalized.  That's some pretty complicated shit, to my way of thinking, even if it does occur pretty naturally in many cases.

No, sorry.  I can't go there with you.  The addition of that little "real, enjoyable" tag poisons the whole paragraph for me, in terms of fostering any sort of agreement or mutual understanding.  If you can say the same paragraph again without trying to slice off some types of competition as "real" and some types of competition as "false," that would make it easier for me.

I don't know what you hear when I say "rudimentary."  It was a crummy choice of words on my part, and I apologize for having snarled the conversation with it.  Anyway, here's what I'm talking about.  In order to make competition happen, people need to be able to:

• Choose a set of rules and play by them
• Manage the logistics of getting together as a group
• ... and that's pretty much it.

That actually does strike me as pretty simple stuff, compared to the much broader panoply of skills that I've seen in the pursuit of cooperation.  I'd be interested to hear the "complicated shit" (hey man, your words, not mine!) that you're talking about, and whether it's more than the above.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen1. You must cooperate to collaborate.

2. You must collaborate to create things in play.

3. Neither of those first two neccessarily denies competition.

In all seriousness, these words are no longer communicating anything meaningful to me.  I don't know what you mean by them, and so I'm confronted with a huge Heisenberg smear of things you might be saying, some of which I'm fine with and some of which I'm not.

In #1, for instance, you might be saying "In order to build upon each other's contributions you need to recognize and validate those contributions (in at least some cases)."  I don't find that objectionable.

But you might also be saying "In order for people to participate in the same activity at all, they must be constantly considerate of each other's feelings, and work together to maximize the enjoyment of everyone, even at the detriment of their own enjoyment."

Those are both legitimate unpackings of "In order to collaborate you must cooperate."  I can't agree with the sentence as it stands.  Nor can I disagree with it.  I don't have enough information.

If you can unpack it ... actually say it in substantially more words ... I might be able to answer your "Yes?  No?" question.

Here's an unpacking of my own:  "A group can act together in a structured way that reliably achieves fun, entertaining, engaging play without anyone ever acting in a way that does not optimally serve their own self-interest."

If I pack that down, I might say it as "Collaboration doesn't require cooperation," but I think the unpacked version does a better job of communicating.  What do you think?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenRight.  I think of cooperative play the same way.  It's not a moral obligiation, but it is a social lubricant.  If you discard it, you get a significant chunk of responsibility for what happens next.

Okay, let's follow this up and see where it leads.  Can I trade in this responsibility for spectacular prizes and a Caribbean get-away?  What are the long-term effects of the chunk of responsibility?  If I am holding this chunk of responsibility then am I obligated to find a solution if what happens next is unpleasant?  For example:  If Joe says "Hey, I don't like that!" am I not allowed to say "Tough noogies!" and move on, because of my responsibility?

Am I afforded less freedom to advocate my own personal agenda in the face of other people who want something different?  For example:  If Joe says "Okay, that was stupid.  Let's say that never happened," and I say "Uh ... no.  We're proceeding with play now," does Joe get his way because I have a responsibility?

Quote from: TonyLBAnyway, here's what I'm talking about.  In order to make competition happen, people need to be able to:

• Choose a set of rules and play by them
• Manage the logistics of getting together as a group
• ... and that's pretty much it.

That actually does strike me as pretty simple stuff, compared to the much broader panoply of skills that I've seen in the pursuit of cooperation.  I'd be interested to hear the "complicated shit" (hey man, your words, not mine!) that you're talking about, and whether it's more than the above.

That first one, in RPG terms, might well be listed as "create a set of rules and play by them".  How many RPGs actually explicity include competitive play?

Amber, Capes...

Quote from: TonyLBIn #1, for instance, you might be saying "In order to build upon each other's contributions you need to recognize and validate those contributions (in at least some cases)."  I don't find that objectionable.

Yep.  That's the stuff.

Quote from: TonyLBHere's an unpacking of my own:  "A group can act together in a structured way that reliably achieves fun, entertaining, engaging play without anyone ever acting in a way that does not optimally serve their own self-interest."

Can.  But they will always achieve a specific variety of play.  One that most people currently go to other kinds of games to get.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, let's follow this up and see where it leads.  Can I trade in this responsibility for spectacular prizes and a Caribbean get-away?  What are the long-term effects of the chunk of responsibility?  If I am holding this chunk of responsibility then am I obligated to find a solution if what happens next is unpleasant?  For example:  If Joe says "Hey, I don't like that!" am I not allowed to say "Tough noogies!" and move on, because of my responsibility?

Am I afforded less freedom to advocate my own personal agenda in the face of other people who want something different?  For example:  If Joe says "Okay, that was stupid.  Let's say that never happened," and I say "Uh ... no.  We're proceeding with play now," does Joe get his way because I have a responsibility?

You do something, and it makes Joe mad.  You and Joe now need to solve the problem.  You and Joe are responsible for the problem, together.  

If the problem came about because you did something that the majority of the group would find objectionable, then it becomes even tricker, because what needs to be weighed equates out to "how much do you need this thing to have a good game?" versus "How much does it ruin everyone else's fun?"

If the answer is "You don't really need this, and it pisses off the group a whole lot", then it's time for you to drop it.  If the reverse is true, then the group needs to let it go.  

...Or you can all bury it, pretend it isn't there, and let it fuck up the game for all time.