Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat 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...

D&D.

And I'm not even talking about the hugely common intra-party fighting.  I'm talking about the bigger elephant in the room.  I'm talking about the DM.

That's a competitive role, and always has been.  People bring various levels of sportsmanship to it, and that is cooperation alongside the competition, but the mark of a good DM is that he provides adversity.  He doesn't do that by working side by side with the players to make their characters happy in the simplest possible way.  He does it by trying to do things to them that they'd rather not see happen.  He does it by trying to beat them.

Structured competition is explicitly present in all traditional RPGs.

How would you achieve adversity (the sine qua non of an engaging story) without it?  I mean ... you can.  I can give you systems that are 100% non-competitive, and which still provide adversity, but I don't think you'll get there by just blithely trusting your intuition.  Do you?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou 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.

Here's another viewpoint:  I do something, within my rights.  Joe gets pissed off.  I haven't "made" him do anything.  He's a big boy, he's got emotions, he gets pissed off and that's his doing.  That's also Joe's problem, and he can deal with it in any manner that pleases him, from accepting responsibility for his own emotions and dealing with them to retaliating in ways that (in turn) piss me off.

I am not obligated to be Joe's rescuer, just because his feelings are hurt.  I don't have to fix his emotions.  I can't fix his emotions.  They're his.  He can get pissed at me because I chose to roll my d20 left-handed rather than right-, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

What I am obligated to do is to be a responsible and mature adult myself, and to live up to the obligations that make our group activity work.  So, honestly, I'm interested in what you conceive my obligations to be a whole hell of a lot more than I am interested in what Joe may or may not get pissed off about.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's a competitive role, and always has been.  People bring various levels of sportsmanship to it, and that is cooperation alongside the competition, but the mark of a good DM is that he provides adversity.  He doesn't do that by working side by side with the players to make their characters happy in the simplest possible way.  He does it by trying to do things to them that they'd rather not see happen.  He does it by trying to beat them.

Structured competition is explicitly present in all traditional RPGs.

Again, I think you're using "competition" differently than I am.  To me, a competitor has a side, and wants their side to win.

A DM very explicitly isn't supposed to be out to beat the players, by the books.  They are out to provide challenge.  

Quote from: TonyLBWhat I am obligated to do is to be a responsible and mature adult myself, and to live up to the obligations that make our group activity work.  So, honestly, I'm interested in what you conceive my obligations to be a whole hell of a lot more than I am interested in what Joe may or may not get pissed off about.

I concieve your obligation to be to take an equal share of responsibility for things you do that bother you at the table, or which bother you.

If Joe gets pissed because you did something, then it's not Joe's problem.  It's yours and his both.  If you think that Joe's a dipshit for getting mad over it, and refuse to meet him halfway and discuss it seriously, then your obligation is to not play with Joe, rather than treating his problem as invalid.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAgain, I think you're using "competition" differently than I am.  To me, a competitor has a side, and wants their side to win.

Okay.  Fair enough.  Not my definition, but I see what you're saying.

Honestly, I think that the words aren't doing us a damn bit of good.  "Competitive," "Cooperative" ... they're just acting as screens upon which we project our own misconceptions of what the other person is trying to say.

I wish I could have convinced you to talk more about what you mean by cooperation ... to unpack it more.  Unfortunately, the discussion didn't go that way, and now we're nearing our denouement.  I'm not, really not, going to launch into a unilateral attempt to clarify the semantics at this point.  I'm just going to say "These terms appear to be conspiring to help us talk past each other, and I'm probably going to avoid them (where possible) in future for that very reason."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf Joe gets pissed because you did something, then it's not Joe's problem.  It's yours and his both.  If you think that Joe's a dipshit for getting mad over it, and refuse to meet him halfway and discuss it seriously, then your obligation is to not play with Joe, rather than treating his problem as invalid.

Wow ... this is a gigantic straw-man.  I don't even think you get that it's a gigantic straw-man, which is really creepin' me out a bit.

You're presenting two extremes here:

• (A) I concern myself intimately with Joe's emotional state, and make myself an equal partner with him in the maintenance of it.  We live, in short, inside each other's heads in some very real ways.
  
• (B) I decide that Joe is a dipshit, and I withdraw all respect and consideration from him.

The reason your statement above is a straw-man is that when I said "No, I don't advocate A," I did not therefore imply "Yes, I do advocate B."  What I advocate is exploring the vast middle ground between these two extremes.

In order to say "I don't feel obliged to fix Joe's concerns," I do not have to say "Joe is a bad person who is no longer my friend."  I can (and routinely do) say "Joe's a good guy, and a friend, but I'm not going to help him out with this."

Acting as if that middle ground doesn't exist is not terribly healthy.  We're talking, I think, about Geek Social Fallacy #3 here:  Friendship Above All.  And, I think, you're already advancing it to the pathological point of a friendship-test: If I do not act to make Joe happy when he gets mad at me then it proves that I'm not his friend, because Friendship is Above All, so if I were his friend I would do what needed doing in order to make him happy.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  Fair enough.  Not my definition, but I see what you're saying.

Honestly, I think that the words aren't doing us a damn bit of good.  "Competitive," "Cooperative" ... they're just acting as screens upon which we project our own misconceptions of what the other person is trying to say.

I wish I could have convinced you to talk more about what you mean by cooperation ... to unpack it more.  Unfortunately, the discussion didn't go that way, and now we're nearing our denouement.  I'm not, really not, going to launch into a unilateral attempt to clarify the semantics at this point.  I'm just going to say "These terms appear to be conspiring to help us talk past each other, and I'm probably going to avoid them (where possible) in future for that very reason."

It is a bit late in the thread to get to that.  But there's no reason we can't follow this up with an open thread where everyone can join us, and just play with it freely.

I'm thinking of this thread, more and more, as a way of digging at the guts of this stuff; after we dig, and see what we find, maybe we can build.

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... this is a gigantic straw-man.  I don't even think you get that it's a gigantic straw-man, which is really creepin' me out a bit.

*Snip*

You're pushing what I said a fair bit further than I meant it, and it may be my fault for being unclear, so I'll clarify that a whole lot more.

Let's say that, sitting at the table, Joe expresses that he as a player does not like what you are doing and that it interferes with his ability to enjoy the game.

In order to solve that problem, you must treat his beef as legitimate.  If you don't treat it that way, you can either treat it as non-legit, or refuse to address it at all.

If you chose to treat his beef as not legitimate, you're basically saying "I'm right, and you're wrong" right out the starting gate, which does not lead to any solution unless he buries the problem.

If you refuse to address it at all, there is no solution left for him but to bury the problem.

Buried problems ruin games.  Regularly.

So, when someone present as problem that has to do with your play, your resposibility, your obligation, is to first treat it as a legitimate problem, and then work to solve it.  Their responsibility is to to treat your play as equally legitimate, and work to solve that.

Make more sense to you?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt is a bit late in the thread to get to that.  But there's no reason we can't follow this up with an open thread where everyone can join us, and just play with it freely.

That sounds fun.  I'll do my closing post, and you can do yours, and we can take things to some other mode.

Heh.  I will admit that I predict I will be dog-piled pretty heavily in a popular arena, but that's cool too.  I can take it

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIn order to solve that problem, you must treat his beef as legitimate.

Sure.  I'll buy that.  But it doesn't follow that I am, in fact, obligated to treat his beef as legitimate.  I have to do it in order to make Joe happy in the game.  But sometimes I'm fine with not making Joe happy in the game.

By the way, I find the whole "solve the problem" thing a wonderful, telling, common way of phrasing this.  "Two guys are passionately disagreeing!  In order to solve that problem we'll have to do X, Y and Z."  It assumes that disagreement is always a problem.  It assumes that people can only be working at cross-purposes if there is something deeply wrong.  It assumes that the healthy state of affairs is for everyone to be working for the same goal, and figuring out what to do by consensus.

When you assume that disagreement must be a problem you are, in fact, assuming your conclusion:  The basis of your argument only makes sense if you assume that cooperation is the only healthy interaction.

Y'know what?  I'm not going to cede that point to you.  Not a big surprise, right?

Now ... have I viewed your beef as legitimate?  No, I have not.  But then again, I haven't ignored you, and I haven't judged you "right out of the starting gate" either.  I've heard you out and I remain unconvinced.

Does that mean that we'll continue to disagree?  Yes, that's what it means.  The fact that we disagree, frankly, doesn't bother me in the least.  It seems part and parcel of a good, healthy environment for discussion.

Does this disagreement mean that we have a problem?  I really don't think so.  But if you were (hypothetically) coming to a point where my unwillingness to agree with you made you not want to talk with me any more ... I would place that firmly in the category of "Levi's problems" and leave you to solve it (or not solve it) on your own.

Is that level of maturity, which we reliably achieve on various fora, beyond what a gaming group can achieve face to face?  >shrug<  It's not beyond my gaming group.  Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBuried problems ruin games.  Regularly.

I expect they do.  I would expect, in fact, that even buried disagreements are enough to torpedo a game.  That's a damn fine reason not to bury them.  And that, in turn, is a damn fine reason to get comfortable with disagreement.  Disagreement isn't a problem until you make it one.


This being my tenth post, I feel like I should do some grand summing up thing ... but, honestly, we seem to have come full circle, and I don't know what to say beyond what's above.

Except, of course, to express my gratitude to Levi for a spectacular and fun conversation.  We don't agree, but I sure do get a lot out of our disagreements!  Let's do this again some time real soon.

This is, in many ways, what I think we've dug out:

In an RPG, or any other effort that strives to create something entertaining and valuable, given and very specific values of competition, which we've talked about here, are positive.

The GM's challenge-creation is such a form of competition.  Creative 'one-upmanship' can be, as well.  There are many other potential and actual  forms.

There is always the chance for things to go wrong in an RPG that include overtly competitive elements - but these things can be controlled by many of the same things we use to keep cooperative play from turning into "everybody gets everything they want!" - by clear agreement, rules of play, group effort, strong leadership, in whatever combination.

Most current, traditional RPGs tend to use (or at least, to acknowledge) limited, very specific forms of competition.  Among other things, the idea of an RPG as a game that you can win isn't new, but it is under-explored.

What this makes me consider is that in order to get a better grip on this kind of thing - in order to find new ways to use competition and to understand them - we need to look more at actual play, find out when it drives play and when it doesn't, and condense that down, whether into bits of "common sense" that likely will only be 'common' to some, into potential game rules, whatever.

-------------

As to the basic topic of "Player responsibilities", I don't think we've really covered any new ground.  Basically, we've just thrown more emphasis on groups acting like grown-ups, and shown that there's more than one way to do that (which might be a slight step forward from the mental trap of one-true-ways).

-------------

Many thanks, Tony.  That was fun.  I'll be thinking on this for a bit, but if anyone wants to open up a thread for general participation, I'll be in there, too.

And dear powers-that-is, a thread lock would be appreciated.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd dear powers-that-is, a thread lock would be appreciated.

I will lock it and keep it stickied (for a little while) if that's what you guys would prefer (though obviously it won't stay stickied forever). But I was thinking that instead we could open this same thread up for comments now that you two are done?

It might be easier for people to respond to specific points of yours if they can quote your text directly, etc.

But let me know what you both would prefer, and I'll bow to your choices.

RPGPundit

That totally works for me.  It's a change of mode ("Levi and me" to "Public discussion") either way, and I agree that it's a lot easier for people to continue from where we were.

Yup.

Okay, then - thread open.  Comment away, folks.

There are so many misconceptions in this thread I don't know where to start. So, some random picks.

A "disagreement" is not a "problem." Only a conflict-averse wuss would think so - granted, there are many conflict-averse wusses in the world. A disagreement is a disagreement, a problem is a problem. Each may cause the other, or just sit there by itself.

Quote from: TonyLBThe basis of your argument only makes sense if you assume that cooperation is the only healthy interaction.

Co-operation is the only healthy interaction - co-operation towards a particular end goal. Doesn't mean there'll be co-operation for all the little goals along the way. You can co-operate towards an end, yet still compete with the means.

   First Example
"We are going to co-operate to try to have fun roleplaying."
"I don't want to."
Not really any way to resolve those differences. Different ends.

Second Example
"We are going to co-operate to try to have fun roleplaying, and we're going to do that by having a dungeon crawl."
"I want to have fun roleplaying, but I want to do it by talking to people in the inn near the dungeon."
There's a chance they can find a middle ground there, and co-operate.

You can fight about the exact means, so long as you're co-operating towards the ends. For example, two football teams on a field usually co-operate towards the end of having a fair game. Each follows the rules, tosses the ball to the other guys when there's a turnover, etc. But they're still competing with each-other along the way.

Now, "do players have any specific responsibility to each-other?" Fuck, yes! Players have the responsibility to help one another have fun. That means stuff like: shower in the 24 hours before the game, show up on time, make sure you have with you your character sheet and anything else needed for play, tell people honestly what sort of game you enjoy, encourage the quiet guy to speak up, share your munchies, don't rain on anyone's parade, be a cheerleader for your fellow players and GM, telling them when they've done well, don't let thegame get bogged down in pointless details (.45 cal vs 9mm, etc)... mate, there's all sorts of stuff.

When we engage in a group social activity, we are responsible for one another's fun. If you can't handle that, sit at home alone and play Diablo instead.

Quote from: JimBobOzCo-operation is the only healthy interaction - co-operation towards a particular end goal. Doesn't mean there'll be co-operation for all the little goals along the way. You can co-operate towards an end, yet still compete with the means.

So when you are not cooperating for all the little goals along the way, you're interacting in a way that isn't co-operation, and yet is still healthy.  That indicates that co-operation isn't the only healthy interaction, yes?

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen we engage in a group social activity, we are responsible for one another's fun. If you can't handle that, sit at home alone and play Diablo instead.

No thanks.  Instead I'm going to go out, socialize, take responsibility for my own fun, and expect that other people are big, mature, adults and they can be responsible for their own fun too.  I am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.  Does that make me a bad person?

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you are not cooperating for all the little goals along the way, you're interacting in a way that isn't co-operation, and yet is still healthy.  That indicates that co-operation isn't the only healthy interaction, yes?

No, it doesn't. It indicates that competition is possible along the way towards the goal you're co-operating for. If you've no common goal, if you're competing as to which goal you'll go for, then you're entirely competitive the whole way, and that is not healthy, no. That leads to misery and frustration.

Consider for example some engineers laying a bridge. There are two work teams. The first team competes with the second to lay their side of the bridge first. Though they are competing in regards to the means, they are co-operating in regards to the ends - both teams want the bridge to be finished and sound.

Quote from: TonyLBNo thanks.  Instead I'm going to go out, socialize, take responsibility for my own fun, and expect that other people are big, mature, adults and they can be responsible for their own fun too.  I am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.  Does that make me a bad person?

No, that makes you a silly bugger who has no clue what "co-operation" really is.

When you go out to the pub, do you each buy your own drinks individually, or do you buy a round, then they buy a round, etc? If you go up to the bar and buy a round for your mates, then they take turns doing the same for you, it's financially the same as if you'd bought all your own drinks yourself - but buying rounds for one another is the co-operative way to do things.

When you go to the cinema, do you sometimes have one person collect the money and go buy all the tickets while the others buy the snacks? When you go to a game session, do you ever lend out your dice and books? When you game, do you ever get pissed off because someone says, "but my character wouldn't be interested in this adventure!" and has their character wander off, expecting to be chased and dragged back? Do you ever alter an rpg's rules because, even though you're happy with them, someone else dislikes them?

Oh dear sounds like you've co-operated!

If you do nothing but compete, that is unhealthy, and produces stress and misery - and not just in you. If you compete towards a final co-operative goal, then that can be fun.

Much of the co-operation we engage in in our lives we take for granted. We pay taxes, shout drinks, follow the road rules, alter game rules to make other gamers happy, don't interrupt the other player when they're speaking, and so on. It's so easy and obvious we usually aren't even aware we're doing it. By contrast, we notice competition. So when we describe our activities, we see a lot of competition, and forget just how much we co-operate.

Don't forget.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, that makes you a silly bugger who has no clue what "co-operation" really is.

If you want to conflate "Doesn't feel morally obligated to do X" with "Has never heard of X, nor done it," that's fine.  But there's no discussion to be had there.  Next!

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you are not cooperating for all the little goals along the way, you're interacting in a way that isn't co-operation, and yet is still healthy.  That indicates that co-operation isn't the only healthy interaction, yes?No thanks.  Instead I'm going to go out, socialize, take responsibility for my own fun, and expect that other people are big, mature, adults and they can be responsible for their own fun too.  I am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.  Does that make me a bad person?

I think the buying rounds of drinks example is a good one.

If you're the guy who accepts people's rounds of drinks but never offers to buy one and then, when told "hey man, it's your turn to buy a round" says "we never had an agreement!" Then, yeah: I usually think that guy is a schmuck.

On the other hand if you practice a philosophy of egoism philosophically (like, on message-boards) but pick up your round of drinks in practice then, no--not so bad, IME. IIRC you've been on the record as wanting people to tell you you're "a bad person" so I think it's going to be very unclear from your discussion here which the case actually is.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf you're the guy who accepts people's rounds of drinks but never offers to buy one and then, when told "hey man, it's your turn to buy a round" says "we never had an agreement!" Then, yeah: I usually think that guy is a schmuck.

Okay.  Why?

Genuinely:  I walk into a bar for the first time with a group of friends.  I'm a bit strapped for cash, but I can afford a beer, and I figure that's as much as I can really handle anyway.  Joe says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Well damn!  Joe's a great guy!"  I take a drink, and toast his health.  Being a featherweight, I'm already feeling a bit woozy after one.  Bob says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Wow, these guys are the best ... I'm not really up for another drink, but I guess I'll join in."  I take a drink and toast everyone's health.  At this point the room is spinning.  Suddenly people are looking at me.  "Your turn, Tony!"  "My turn to what ... puke?" I think to myself.

I'm morally obligated to buy everyone drinks now?  I am, in short, morally obligated to buy way more alcohol than I intended, because people around me are spending and drinking heavily?  Uh...  Fuck no.

I recognize that the trading drinks is a social system that works when everyone buys into it.  That doesn't, however, mean that everyone has to buy into it, especially if nobody ever talks about what the rules are.

That's what this basically comes down to, to me:  Some people have an idea for a social system that works, and they just start acting as if everyone has agreed to that ... and then, somehow, it's supposed to be incumbent upon the people who have never been consulted and never agreed to anything to:

• (a) Figure out what system is being used, and
  
• (b) Either live with that system or actively refuse its benefits from the word "Go."

It's a trap, plain and simple.  Whether you intended it that way when you started, in the moment that you say "Okay, now you're obligated to do this thing you never agreed to," you are springing a trap.

One social system that works just fine is that a guy takes a girl out, spends a lot of money and attention on her, and then they have sex.  It's classic, and if everyone's on the same page it works.  But I hope we can all see that it's not cool for a guy who has spent money and attention on a girl to say "Now you have to have sex with me, because you didn't insist on paying your half of dinner when the check came."