LARP Bleed -- Deal With It

So we've discussed that bleed exists (feeling emotions due to fictional experiences which occur during the LARP) and that it is normal but can be typically reduced (or enhanced) by taking certain actions during the design of the game itself.  Now let's look at ways of dealing with it when it does arise.

Firstly, talk about it.  Mention it during game preparation.  Find an article on it that explains it just right for your game, print that article out and pass it around to your players.  Perhaps include it in your New Player Pack.  Talk about its importance and that it’s the flipside to immersion.  People can't manage it when it takes them completely by surprise.  Then encourage people to talk to you about it.

It can help to provide a few anecdotes about your own experiences with positive and negative bleed and to encourage other experienced players to do the same.  This will normalise the process.

Now is a good time to mention any disturbing content, triggers or likely bleed issues in your game.  If characters can die at any time, if NPCs committing suicide is a risk, or if characters will occasionally aim to publicly humiliate each other to score points with the prince, then it's a good idea to let the players know.  This helps empower them to know if this is the kind of game for them and, if so, the shared game contract allows them to prepare themselves for the worst.

I'd also recommend including some kind of gesture to reflect if someone is still feeling all right that can be subtly used in the game.  It might be the A-OK sign that I flash you if I'm uncertain if those tears in your eyes are a sign of an enjoyable immersive experience or one you want to end.

Having a sign where people can cut the scene, take a step back for a few minutes, then narratively conclude the scene when it gets too intense is also a good idea for some games though naturally if it is used a lot by a particular player in a particular game in situations that are typical of that game than that game may not be suitable for them.

So now you've talked about it during the preparation phase, I'd also recommend mentioning it whenever you experience it during the game and to encourage other players to do the same.  It doesn't need to be a big deal if you (or the player) aren't looking for reassurance.  It could be as simple as an observation like: "Oh, felt a bit of bleed with that scene back then.  All good now,  though."  Or: "I experienced more bleed from that than I thought I would!"

Typically people will discuss negative bleed as "bleed", by the way, and positive emotions by their named emotion.  "That was so exciting!" or "I felt so good when that happened."  That's fine and normal.  People won't always want to explain precisely what painful or aggravating emotion they experienced, only that it did happen.

A strong social backdrop will really help as well.  If you all go out for karaoke or meet up after game for food (eating together is a great social glue) then you will have a more positive network that will help people better identify bleed by divorcing the character actions from the player actions.  In other words, if I only ever deal with your character, how could I know if you actually don't like me or are a mean-spirited person?  If we've hung out together and had a great time, it's a lot easier to realise that it's a character event and simply bleed we're experiencing.

Finally after sessions if you have a heavy-bleed game having every player mention the most emotional moments they experienced during the game, either all together or in small groups (depending on game size).  Mostly they'll focus on positive emotions, but do encourage them to at least mention if they experienced any bleed during the session, even if they don't want to go into detail with it.

So now that you've set the groundwork, what do you do when someone is experiencing painful bleed?

Firstly, validate it.  Each culture treats reassuring and helping someone through painful emotions differently so go with a more sensitive version of that.  In general, listen more than you speak and always validate what they're feeling.  You can provide a few anecdotes of your own experiences but keep them short, sharp and shiny and don't let them take priority.  In other words, your anecdotes are merely to show that you've been there and you understand rather than serving as a chance to vent.

Just don't give any anecdotes of when the same player caused you bleed as that can lead to a bitching session where you both rant about the player, and that's a very toxic way to go.  If the issue is truly with the player, than it's not about character bleed and needs to be dealt with in other ways.

Gently providing perspective on the other characters' actions, or the GM's intentions, can help if the player seems frustrated as to why they were targeted in-character in such a way but should be done gently, in response to their queries, and without judgement.  Re-iterate that they have the right to be upset, it's just that the other player didn't realise how much it would have hurt them or that the other character was operating on different information or had some other goal.

Oftentimes you don't have to give the game away in terms of character motivations, simply providing a half dozen different perspectives of what might be the case can help as it helps the player think in terms of IC motivation rather than OOC personality traits.

Give the player a bit of space to come to terms with their own emotions and then encourage the involved players to spend time together, especially if it's due to character antagonism.  If they avoid each other than the bleed may become entrenched in actual resentment and that's the last thing you want.  Depending on the players, they might be happy to have a special antagonist's hangout to have a bit of fun with it or they might prefer it to be a big group activity that's not so large they can lose sight of each other.

These are the techniques I've used so far, anyway.  Does anyone know any other tricks?

LARP Bleed -- Accept It

If I could change one thing about the LARP scene, it would be the belief that experiencing negative bleed (i.e. empathising with your character's negative feelings to the point where you experience them yourself) is a "bad" thing or somehow a sign of a poor roleplayer.  Bleed is the flipside to immersion. People have feelings during the game and sometimes these will be painful and sometimes they will persist beyond a few days.  It happens.

Of course acknowledging this means acknowledging that sometimes, as a player, you are going to do things that will cause another player pain.  We're all decent people.  We don't want to knowingly hurt another player.  So we claim that anyone who feels a painful emotional reaction to our actions is a sore loser or a bad roleplayer so that we can feel better in assuming that the majority of people can engage in the game without any pain whatsoever, no matter what we do.

It's not an evil temptation (nor the only reason behind it -- most cultures with issues with bleed also have issues with displaying emotion or seeking reassurance) but it is one that divides us and allows for a steady build up in resentment.

After all, while allowing another player to hurt your feelings through fictional actions against a fictional character is often a taboo, being the victim of unfair circumstances is a perfectly valid way of seeking sympathy.  Therefore the hurt player has a real incentive to find someone to blame, some great unfairness behind it all, so that they can vent their feelings without being stigmatised.

"Oh, it's not that I'm feeling things, it's that the guy over there actually screwed me over in some unfair way, and the GM's probably in cahoots with it."

Unfairness is something that can net you sympathy card and even if the other players see through your self-deception, they're not necessarily going to call you on it and you never need to admit that the actions were justified and understandable but painful to experience. 

NOTE: Yes, sometimes there is some sort of OOC unfairness going on but sometimes it's just a person looking for sympathy who can't get it any other way.

No one's shocked when someone gets upset or angry over what happens on fictional television series, novels and movies.  Yet those fictional events are not your fault.  You didn't make the bad call that got your character killed.  Your friend didn't write the death scene that took out your favourite NPC.  You weren't the one sitting in the hot seat while a dozen other people mercilessly point out all of your flaws and mistakes for a full hour in a bid to drop your status and increase their own.

These things are going to be more intense because you're there.  The threat of such consequences will also add a thrill to the game, ensuring the successes are all the brighter, so there's no need to get rid of them.  It's simply important to accept that the odds of being a person who is incredibly immersed in the experience yet whose emotions switch off the moment something bad happens or someone says END SESSION is incredibly unlikely.

The emotions are there and they will persist until resolved.

Does this mean that bleed is an excuse to be a dick?

Hell no!

However I have found those who own their emotions and accept that sometimes you'll feel bad when bad things happen can actually move through it more readily and with far less (even no) resentment towards those who have caused it.   Rather than having to create victimhood narratives to get a shred of sympathy, they can instead turn to the players of antagonists in the game, and to their allies, and go: "Wow.  That hurt.  It really hurt.  I love this game and you guys are all awesome … but wow.  Feeling so much more bleed right now than I thought I would."

This then allows the players of their antagonists to give them a hug, metaphorical or otherwise, and talk them through it and maybe provide some perspective.  Nothing kills OOC blame on a player of an antagonistic character like when that very same player provides much needed comfort and reassurance.

Does this mean that there are no ways to reduce player bleed or strengthen the IC / OOC barrier?  Sure there are!  Heck, acknowledging bleed strengthens the IC / OOC barrier just like the example where one's characters are at war while the players help each other out.

Unfortunately most methods to reduce bleed will reduce *all* bleed.  You can't get tonnes of the good without the risk of the bad because the more immersion, engagement and attachment you have the worse you'll feel toward loss and humiliation -- except by removing the threat or reducing the extent of that loss / humiliation (i.e. cooperative PvE game where no loss is permanent).

NOTE: GMs also can feel Bleed as not only are they seeing the big picture, empathising with all players involved in order to figure out what they want next but they can also be partially responsible for what they're seeing.  Seeing your players in pain because of a decision you made, even if the ramifications of that decision were completely unforeseen, can also cause a GM pain.  While GMs often provide support to their players who are experiencing negative bleed, they typically don't have anyone they can talk to either due to secrecy reasons or a desire to prevent their views from clouding the situation and making things worse.  So give your GM a cookie or a Thank You card as a concrete sign of your favour!  If they're any good, they deserve it.

Engaging LARP Players to Help Immersion

While some LARPs prefer to keep most matters on the level of player imagination, some attempt to re-create elements of the game world to engage their player's five senses to help them better connect with the situation.  Since most LARPs don't earn enough of a profit to utilise top-notch venues or purchase epic props, and most LARP GMs don't have either the personal finances or storage space to provide it themselves, it's important to tap into the resources of your player base to get that higher end game.

                Note that I don't mean you should start handing out invoices or demanding people purchase various goods and if no one has what you're looking for than you just need to go without.  Expecting players to pony up the funds for items you want isn't fair either.

                Oh no, what I'm talking about are using communication and gratitude to ensure that players have the opportunity to assist with game immersion and are rewarded for doing so.  If you need something for your game and you have a steady membership, ask if anyone either has the prop or has ideas for how you might cobble together a basic version of the prop.  If no one responds, that's fine.  If they do, fantastic.  Thank them and take their ideas on board.

                This is a really good idea for small things that may still be costly to have to keep providing.  If you need something to represent herbs, seeing if anyone has a lavender bush that they're willing to cut bundles off is much more cost-effective than going off and purchasing lavender yourself.  If a toy version of the item can work, such as a stethoscope, you could always put out a call out for that as well in case people have the item in their toy chests.

                Sometimes players may be able to loan you larger items as well so don't fear asking if someone has a portable barbeque, trestle tables, table cloths or Christmas trees that they don't mind bringing to the game for a night.  You'd be surprised what people have knocking around in their sheds and if you have the storage space, you might find they're willing to literally give you extra chairs, tables and the like.  Many players want to invest and feel like they're a real part of the LARP's success and will go to great lengths to help the LARP if you give them the chance.

                When you're running a LARP campaign, I'd also recommend being flexible and inventive with the items they bring.  In other words, if a player is super excited about making an edible jelly heart, find a way to include that in the game.  Don't make the session rely on it if they haven't done it before as no one needs that pressure, but consider it for either atmosphere or a standalone puzzle.  If you keep saying "no" or being uncertain about offerings, your players will stop making those offerings as they may start to feel like the offerings themselves are unwelcome and that's not a good place to be.

                You want to get the players used to thinking in terms of how they can pitch in with you, give them a sense of ownership of the game and you want to help them get their creative juices going.  If they're only ever responding to lists, they'll either switch off or even just forget to mention their own creativity abilities.  Plus it can be a really good way to get your own inventiveness going when a player brings something nifty to your attention.  You'll be surprised by what you can come up with.

                Where people donate or provide items for game, you should certainly make a point to thank them by name on occasion.  It doesn't have to be a public thanks every time, especially if the player doesn't like such public commendations, but certainly show your gratitude on behalf of the game.  This is far more important to most players than any experience point burst and I have had success in my game going by this alone.  This isn't to say that you can't reward people with experience points as it's a nice and tangible way to say thank you, but you shouldn't rely on it.  At the very least, a more public reward makes the other players realise that it's an option and helps create an "All In" mentality where the players themselves feel like partial owners of the game rather than passive consumers and customers.

                And this last point is equally important.  As a LARP organiser, you are almost certainly a volunteer and while their assistance is helping you realise your vision, your vision is meant to be a framework within which they can design their own characters arcs and play their own paths.  Sure, feel sincerely thankful for being part of such a great community full of wonderful players that want to pitch in, BUT don't take on a humble, submissive, I'm-Not-Worthy mentality unless you want a quick road to resentment, bitterness and burn out. 

                It's hard to feel good about something when you sink unpaid hours into it and yet expect yourself to beg for scraps of player assistance.  It's a destructive and unhealthy habit encouraged by too many GMs online to combat the old school and equally unhealthy God GM arrogance.  You are a volunteer.  It is good to ask for help.  It is good to delegate.  Don't be mean about it, respect your players limitations in time, money and investment, and you'll be fine.  No one likes an unnecessary martyr.  Breathe and ask!

                Building a LARP community around your games where everyone is welcome and able to contribute is a far better model than using a customer service model where volunteers must sink in hours of service provision at the beck and call of consumers.  But that's a whole other tangent worthy of an article of it's own.

Reasons why chauvinistic fantasy worlds *can* suck for female players

Now this is an area of some contention.  Some people love highly realistic medieval worlds - with or without realistically treated magic.  Now I'm not talking about those kinds of contexts.  In a world where my character can be slain by gangrene caused by untreated wounds and STDs are rife, I'm going to be way more chilled about dealing with chauvinistic settings. 

Though, of course, the GM would have to be comfortable with playing said chauvinistic settings realistically and not with the ham-fisted style of a 1950s "Girls can't be tough" and "Stay in the kitchen, girl" that seems to be more the product of a backlash against changing expectations and a need to reinforce gender norms.  In most societies where certain gender norms are just expected, people just do what they do and say what they say.  They don't need to say "You're a girl so we're not listening to you", they just don't listen.

But that aside....

The reasons why I'm not a fan of the average chauvinistic fantasy world is for a couple reasons.  These include:

1. The male protagonists get it easy.  Unless they're playing homosexuals or disdained racial minorities, I'll have to struggle to do what my co-players get for free just because I chose to align my PC's gender to my own.
2. Realism is normally judiciously applied to only certain scenarios.  We don't need to worry about STDs or gangrene, but we do need to worry about men looking down to us.
3. What may look like empowerment by letting us undermine and exceed chauvinistic expectations can actually be humiliating.  It reminds us how easy it is for men to look down on us and how if we were not in a post-industrial society, the very men at this table would feel the same way about us.
4. It also suggests that silencing women's voices (as sexist characters shouldn't be willing to listen to a woman's advice) and ignoring of individual women's strengths (when sexist commoners laugh at their years of training even though any trained fighter is bound to trounce them) is natural to the human species.  After all, this isn't a true medieval world.  Social structures would change to reflect that.
5. Sometimes it's not even realistic.  Sorcery and alchemy on the scale often found in most fantasy worlds should have as much of a social impact as technology.  If my willpower can beat your sword arm, than why would society assume you could overwhelm me?  Also a world with alchemy and relics could conceivably have a herbal form of birth control and family planning is a real door opener for women in a society. 
6. If there is no form of birth control, why aren't male character's alignments changed from Good to Neutral if they have sex with random women as they are conceivably damning dozens of women and babies to an unsupported and shameful existence for a quick roll in the hay?  At the very least, it shouldn't be Lawful.
7. It removes female role models as the average GM naturally (due to media influences) includes more male characters anyway and when you add to that chauvinistic biases, you're going to have an almost all-male cast.  This is an isolating experience for many women which sends an unintended message that these sorts of adventures "aren't for them" and that they are somehow strange or different for wanting to be a part of them.
8. It can also give chauvinistic players and GMs the chance to express their negative beliefs toward the very women at the table.
9. Even if the players and GMs don't hold those beliefs, it can still leave the female player feeling targeted because she's having to hear these comments occurring around her a lot.
10. Real world chauvinism is insidious.  Smacking down a single commoner for giving you lip would normally lead to retaliation for violating social norms.  If the social norm sides against the commoner, they shouldn't have given lip in the first place.  Just look at Brienne from Game of Thrones.  Random commoners don't mention what she should or shouldn't be doing because the class differences are way more important than gender norms and they have no right to counter her desires.

Now this isn't to say that it can't be done, can't be done well, and that some female players don't actually prefer these kinds of medieval worlds and struggles.  There's bound to be a contrary list out there where a particular female player outlines all the reasons why it's awesome to do.  I'm not denying that those reasons *also* exist only that this list can shed light for those GMs who struggle to retain female players or whose female players request an absence of sexism in their game.

My gender has a long history of being told we're not good enough to be involved in any historic event -- whether political, scientific, religious or military focused.  Those historic events that do revolve around classically female domains have either silence women or been ignored.  Having to grapple with those very expectations in a fantasy world can be really hard as it means we can't even imagine a world where we matter despite our genitalia.

And that *can* really suck.

Naturally, your female players' mileage may vary but it is important to consider.

Masks of Nyarlathotep Murder Mystery Event

One of the many great things about Masks of Nyarlathotep is how it has so much fan-generated content, possibly more than any other roleplaying campaign ever made.  There's an entire Companion, plenty of prop downloads, and oodles of advice but how to expand on it or just plain old make it better.  So I wondered if I could use the New York chapter as the foundation for a Murder Mystery Event / Conspiracy LARP. 

Basically Erica Carlyle pulls together interested buyers in her brother's books *and* those involved or surrounding the mystery of Elias Jackson's death to a single great soiree to see the lunar eclipse and finally get to the bottom of Elias Jackson's claims.  Naturally there's a number of investigators, cultists, witnesses, conspiracy theorists, and hardened killers to sweeten the pot.

I've managed to grab a venue that has four main rooms and a foyer - one of which stands well as a library - and there are plenty of props and handouts to bring to hand, including Cryptocurium's excellent Bloody Tongue Avatar statuette that can be brought into game.  The rules will be very simple to keep it fun for all and the focus on the characters rather than the traits.

The main mystery I'm figuring out now is how to include all the various props without over complicating it and making it impossible to solve.  I'm figuring that I'll have the props around, as props, but ensure that you can solve it based on what people know (through their character kits) than the handouts they bring to game or which are already there.

You can read more about the advertising spiel of it over here and view the actual Eventbrite booking page over here.

LARP OOC Conversations

Regrettably this isn't something I have a lot of advice for but I figured it might bring up some conversation and perhaps it's a topic I can re-visit with loads of really good answers from my next big LARP campaign.  Basically the problem is this: you get a group of players (generally the most experienced ones) who've likely had a big and tiring week and in the middle of game they drop character and start chatting about their general day-to-day lives so rather than driving the LARP (as again they're most often the very influential ones) they are a big immersion-breaking clot.

Naturally part of the problem can be traced back to the players not having enough to do in-character but alas this isn't always the case.  Often someone simply thought of a cool story and then that reminded another player of an interesting thought which led to a comparison with another event/movie/videogame and then everyone's wrapped up in the chatter.

I've noted that my literal presence often tames such conversations even without having to make friendly shooing motions or even reminders, but once the GM is over in the corner all bets are off.  In my last LARP, which was quite small by the end of it, everyone dropped OOC the moment I'd left even if I was taking a loo break and they were in the thick of discussions.  I'd pop back, they'd pick up their IC roles pretty seamlessly and we'd get back on with it.  They hadn't waited for a rules check or anything but my absence had become a bit of a Tea Break indicator even if I'd specifically designated another player (any player) to try to keep them IC.

Not a terrible thing, to be sure, as in this case all players dropped in and out-of-character at will and without any real interruption, but still an amusing peculiarity of my LARP's customs.

But anyway ... ever been to a LARP where OOC conversations would tie up a number of players?  What helped?  What didn't?  What does one do?  Leave all of your ideas in the comments box below!

GM Showmanship

The glorious Star Theatres smaller theatre.

Let's face it.  Pretty much no GM wants to make their players feel redundant, irrelevant or like they are mere spectators.  GMs want their players to be engaged, excited and amazed.  They want buy in.  They want the players to be sitting there wondering what new miraculous thing will turn up.  The trouble is that the same techniques which can leave players spellbound can also leave them ... frustrated.

Part of the wonders and frustrations of the game revolves around GM showmanship.  As a player, I wanted to be wowed.  I want to have fantastic things happen.  Mostly I want to be the epicentre of those fantastic things, but I also enjoy seeing things happening over there because it gives the world a greater mystique and sense of realism.

Yet much of the showmanship has a great risk to become either dull or disempowering (or both).  So there's this major battle between an epic paladin and a dragon occurring on the outskirts of the city ... it's fitting, it ties into the major story, and it showcases what the players may one day become.  Yet odds are the GM never rolls for either creature and so, in truth, the players will never one day become that paladin whose abilities are perfect in every way because they will have to worry about fizzled spells and a potential run of missed attacks that can throw off their groove.

On the other hand, the GM could roll in front of them but that puts the players into the spectator seats of a longer, more drawn out and incredibly dull variation on the game.  Few people quiver in excitement at the opportunity to watch a combat in action, let alone when one person is rolling against themselves, because it's just not very exciting.

The ideal situation, in this case, would be to either have the dramatic event occur as a backdrop (which'd be way more exciting) as the players have to gather up the villagers to safety from under the dragon's crushing paws or busily pickpocket the local nobility while they turn up to watch the battle from the safety of parapets.  That way the GM can get their showmanship going while still ensuring the players are still the protagonists of "their story" (and so that the description is neither cut too short to be tense nor drags out too long to become an unceasing monologue).

If the GM had pre-thought this event, they could even throw in the vagaries of chance by recording the battle's series of rolls and then intermittently interjecting with the details of a failed safe or a successful attack through thunderous displays that flash over the party's heads as they do what they need to do.

So in short, GMs need their showmanship but it's important to remain empathic to the needs of the others at the table.  Just like people enjoy lyrical moments from a PC but get irritable if that same PC hogs a big portion of time while they twiddle their thumbs, so to is their reaction to even the most astounding and impressive feat of imagination drawn from the GM's mind to lay dormant and docile before them.

After all, they're not here to hear a story.  They're here to become it!

Epiphanies in Game Play

It's important for Game Masters of every stripe to realise that not only will players sometimes be dense, requiring a great multitude of clues to point them in the right direction, but also that sometimes they will suddenly tumble to the answer. They may do this with astounding quickness, taking a few disparate details and joining them together, either because they're genre savvy to a few general details or because of a sudden leap of logic that just fits the pieces better than any other current alternative. Either way, it's important not to take their realisation away from them because that breathless moment when an epiphany strikes you is a golden opportunity that players very often remember. If you steal it away from them, negating it using GM fiat, then it becomes quite disappointing and the moment will instead be remembered as "That time I was almost awesome but then the GM blocked my moment." Now while a certain amount of genre blindness can be expected and the player shouldn't use out of character knowledge to help them (such as suddenly declaring the tome should be burnt or the artefact shattered when they know nothing of their sanity draining effects in-game), other moments of genre savviness should be respected. After all, not every genre detail is illogical. In crime fiction as in reality, the murderer is likely to be known to the victim and copycats are a distinct possibility. If the players are in the middle of a serial killer investigation and thus picks up a few clues on one death that doesn't quite match the others, they have every right to start knocking down the husbands' door demanding answers. Sure, your player may have relief on a little bit of genre savviness to figure it out but they're not trained police investigators so they need every edge they can get.

Faulty Assumptions: Four Player Party

I'm not sure if it's a case of unbreakable habit or faulty economics but there is an assumption that every campaign should have between 4 - 6 players.  If you can fit them around the table and run a game for them that doesn't dissolve into boredom and frustration for a few members, then that's the right number to have.

Unfortunately this assumptions provides a number of issues of their own.  While four players can make a reasonable tactical game, six players leads to either arguments about the tactics to take or a few silent players while the others take the limelight (more often than not).

When it comes to investigative games, even four players become unwieldy when they crowd delicate witnesses and kerb stomp the usual thug challenge.  After all, it's hard to intimidate a car load of people.  Since these sorts of games tend to be pretty environmentally intensive with people examining objects and looking for clue trails it can also be tricky to keep four people busy. 

Generally 2 - 3 players are your best bet here as one player may struggle with the challenge of finding all the clues and figuring out all of the paths (though a handy NPC could drop a few hints to guide their way).

Finally I have found that even horror games ride with the assumption that there will be four players involved.  In truth I have found that the smaller the better in a dedicated horror game.  While any game, even six player ones, can have their sessions of genuine horror it is harder to create a plot of creeping disquiet that isn't gobbled up by the realities of a larger group.  Therefore we shouldn't be making the exceptions to the rule the reasons for having the rule in place.

In other words, while you *can* run a horror game with 4 - 6 players, the average horror game would be best off with 1 - 2 players with a third player the upper maximum.  This is especially the case if the horror game involves a lot of psychological horror (to ensure each character gets enough airtime to deal with their terrors) or stealth sequences (since there are few enough hiding places for the average adult in any one location).

The irony of our obsession with 4 - 6 players is that the investigative and horror genres have a smaller player demographic and therefore it's harder to fill out those numbers.  GMs who are desperate to run a straight horror game would be best off recruiting their 1 - 3 hardcore horror fans rather than begging, wheeling and dealing with action and fantasy fans to play in the game.

So please, please, please, don't feel like you have to fit into the four player mould.  There's nothing wrong with a game that runs with fewer than four players.  In fact, in many of the less popular genres it's actually preferable so take it as an advantage! 

After all, while any fantasy GM quickly learns that it's hard to keep to the 4 - 5 player limit with so many eager wannabe players, horror and investigative GMs can guiltlessly run with far fewer players.

Hazards of PvP: Humiliation

Humiliating another character without ALSO humiliating the player is a tricky business because, despite the general myth to the contrary, the human brain isn't wired to know the difference between in-game and out-of-game experiences.  While these situations do sometimes go well with everyone enjoying the moment, if the other player is too good at their job, the humiliation is too complete or the situation too intense (or triggering), things often progress to the "blame game" which can lead to a player complaining about the event for months, or even years, afterwards.

That's ... not a great place to be.

For anyone.

Yet it comes up a lot.

I think the trouble is, in part, the instinctive reactions our brains have to certain body language and facial expressions.  If I slam my fists down on the table and yell in your face, you will have a certain emotional response.  After the initial shock, it will likely be a much reduced one because you *know* I don't intend to hurt you, but that won't stop your brain from gearing up for the possibility that maybe I actually *am* angry.  If you know me, and we deal with each other happily enough later on, then that will help enormously against that reaction. 

But what if you don't know me?  What if we've just met?  What if you try to approach me with a smile to check in after game and I don't realise this and instead give you the cold shoulder and go do something else?  In truth, I could be distracted, have an urgent phone call, misread your body language or simply be socially awkward, introverted, or otherwise desperately needing a few minutes alone to recharge.

It may have *nothing* to do with you, but you won't know that.

And that's the trouble with issues like humiliation which are deeply unpleasant especially if it is over something you, as a player, legitimately thought was a good course of action.  Not only is it an unpleasant experience (though unpleasant emotions can be satisfyingly cathartic).  Now I'm not saying that every gaming experience needs to be pleasant.  I love me some horror gaming and fear is specifically an emotion that pushes you to *avoid* a situation, but part of what makes horror gaming so much fun is because deep down you know you're safe.

If I were to go to a horror game and truly fear for my life, truly think I might be attacked, then it wouldn't be so much fun anymore.

The same thing is the case with humiliation and other similar acts (such as character death) only the lines are far more blurry than with threats of actual bodily harm.

There is a chance that the other player does hate us, that they do want to ruin our fun for the power trip, that they are callously indifferent to the needs of other players, that they are willing to cheat or bribe other players as players to get what they want and that we are being treated unfairly as players, rather than as characters.

And since we have such a stigma (in Australia, at least) against feeling your character's emotions, we refuse to accept the fact that the humiliating situation might have stung because that's what being humiliated feels like.  No one was out to get us.  No one hates us.  That stinging sensation isn't a warning sign from out gut that there's actual players out to get us.  It's just there because the situation temporarily sucked.  It may have triggered memories of past humiliations or given someone new insight into what it's like to be in that spot. 

But with all that stigma out there, we can't admit that.  Admitting that we felt bad and it made us cross or angry is tantamount to saying: "AVOID ME FOR I AM A TERRIBLE PLAYER!"

Now who would want to do that?

So we externalise that pain and we paint the other players with it.  We justify our positions and our emotions rather than simply venting about the situation, admitting that the situation affected us, and then moving on.  And this is very much a shame as the worst thing you can do is to flat out refuse to consider that this might be normal and to instead seek out someone to blame as blame absolutely stone walls the only actual solution -- which is communication and opening yourself up to positive experiences with that other player to ensure that the negative message isn't the only one your brain gets in regards to that other player.

NOTE: This doesn't mean that there are no bad players who are out to spoil another's fun nor does it mean that there are no players who are overly sensitive and need to be handled with kid gloves lest they have a mini melt down.  I just don't believe that each and every player has to be one or the other.

Feelings happen.  Maybe it's just time we admitted that.

Hazards of PvP: Rankism

According to wikipedia, rankism can take many forms, including

• exploiting one's position within a hierarchy to secure unwarranted advantages and benefits (e.g. massive corporate bonuses);
• abusing a position of power ;
• using rank as a shield to get away with insulting or humiliating others with impunity;
• using rank to maintain a position of power long after it can be justified;
• exporting the rank achieved in one sphere of activity to claim superior value as a person;
• exploiting rank that is illegitimately acquired or held (as in situations resting on specious distinctions of social rank, such as racism, sexism, or classism).

This sounds like an important part of most PvP political games where some form of corruption is expected and anticipated.  Unlike other political PvP tactics, this one holds fewer risks as it rarely targets a specific individual as the victim and thus can often encourage those negatively affected to bond together to subvert the power of the authority figures, even if not to outright challenge it.

Of course, rankism can still have challenging side effects, such as when the player's needs dominate those of the characters.  While your average high ranked character shouldn't be throwing themselves into harm's way, generally most players will be motivated to do exactly that and therefore those characters with rank get to go out on all the missions, know all of the in-game secrets required to find those missions and otherwise be able to get to do all of the exciting grunt work on top of being in charge of all the wheeling and dealing.  This can lead to those at the bottom of the hierarchy to miss out entirely on nearly every aspect of the game which leads to a poorer game for them.

On the other hand, if rankism is played in-game as it would be in real life with those of higher ranked holding executive control and managerial oversight, then rankism can work out quite well, with players of more action-oriented 'grunts' enjoying their side of the game while griping about the arrogance of the wheeler dealers who dominate in the political, social and potentially intellectual sides of the game.

Unfortunately this form of rankism generally isn't very common because players naturally don't want to limit themselves to only one half of the experience.  Such players also may not realise (though some do), that their in character rank is allowing them to dominate the game to such an extent, especially if they don't sit back and think about their choice's repercussions.

In games where higher ranked characters also have more experience points (such as due to a vampire's age), those players are doubly encouraged to do everything themselves as they are better positioned to succeed.  It may even seem like a foolish, selfish and cruel thing, to send weaker novices in their place against a dangerous enemy.  Most games have a canonical reason why they should send the novices (i.e. vampires selfishly protect their own unlives at all costs) but this can be more easily ignored when a player's own enjoyment is at stake.

This isn't to say that most players actively seek to push others out of the game, or even that they are indifferent to such effects, more that sufficient temptation can make self-justifying bastards out of us all, especially if no one has pointed out the risks to us in the first place.  Therefore in a PvP LARP it is important to ground such status *in* sticking to your own purview and providing IC and OOC checks against single players being able to do all things all the time while simultaneously preventing other player's access. 

The easier we make it for players to know what they should be doing, remember what they should be doing, and rewarding them for doing what they should be doing, the better off the game will be.  And by "we", I mean all of us ... players, cast, crew, GMs and organisers included.

Hazards of PvP: Character Assassination

The Wikipedia entry (somewhat paraphrased in this instance) describes character assassination in the following way:

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation. Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals to cause their rejection by their community, family or members of their living or work environment.

• raising false accusations
• planting and fostering rumours
• manipulating information to present an untrue negative picture of the targeted person
• exaggeration or misleading half-truths about the subject's morals or actions

For all of those who are playing Vampire games, in particular, character assassination is the ideal and most severe form of punishment available to harpies.  The trick for pulling off a character assassination is to divorce yourself from the rumours you're starting wherever you can so that it appears that "everyone knows" about these facts (therefore making them appear more true), ensuring that the rumours and accusations are difficult to disprove so that people don't look down on you instead, and that the rumours themselves are the sorts of things the other characters will care about (otherwise they will ignore them or, conversely, think more of the person targeted).

In terms of how character assassination can go wrong ... on it's own, it's not as psychologically hazardous in my experience as some of the other options on its own.  It *can* be, if the rumours are particularly nasty and taboo (i.e. accusing someone else's character of being a paedophile) but normally, in and of itself, the rumour mongering isn't particularly problematic unless compounded with some of the other issues we touch upon. 

This is probably because it's so difficult to pull off and because in the early stages the player can be quite involved with fighting the rumours and so the conflict can be engaging rather than disempowering.  After all, there's a chance that the rumour which you start which should be canonically hazardous either seems absurd to the other players (whose brains power their character's opinions anyway) or just doesn't particularly bother them. 

After all, players are motivated by their enjoyment and satisfaction (even if that means working through painful emotions), and if the target of the assassination is a character they enjoy having in the game then they will subconsciously find excuses to justify their own beliefs about the character, discarding rumours they don't like and embracing the ones they do.

Which means, unfortunately, that where a character assassination is successful it is often taken as a reflection of the *player's* own failings in character generation because they would be protected somewhat against the attacks if people liked having their character around.

This, again, needs to be dealt with on the meta level.  The players need to understand and agree with the major social sins of the group in order to keep this as a viable in-game tactic rather than an accidental meta-game one.  If someone is believed to be boon broken in the game, then the players may need to consciously kerb their own interest in the character enough to allow them to be properly affected by it.

The main problem that can be faced even through this tactic is that the final step in a successful character assassination is a virtually unplayable character.  That's why they call it an "assassination" because, by the end of it, life isn't really worth living for that individual.  No player likes to be targeted by a campaign which they cannot overturn and which ends in a lingering 'life worse than death' state where they need to retire their character ... especially if the other players don't believe they should be able to retire the character to 'avoid repercussions'.

Therefore the same techniques should be used to help the player through it and to remind the player that people are not targeting them, they're targeting the character.  In this light, the player should be able to retire the afflicted character.  After all, once you make an absolute win, there's no real need to keep the character around anymore, is there?  It won't be fun for the player and anything else you do would be merely kicking the comatose puppy.  (This isn't to say that a motivated player can't continue with the character in an aim to turn it around - only that it shouldn't be forced.)

If the player is expected to continue with their character so that they can't "avoid the repercussions of their actions" then ask yourself about the ethics of Your Own Actions.  If it were truly about teaching the player, and you really thought it would work, then why wouldn't you be happy to let the newly taught player have a fresh start?  And if it's not going to work, aren't there better ways to perform damage control or teach the player then make them the centre of a negative loop? 

Confused, frustrated, and upset players flail wildly.  That's not going to improve your game.

Character assassination shouldn't be used as a form of player punishment from other players anymore than a Storyteller should crush a character because they don't like a player's play style.

NB: If you want a player to see their own character's character assassination through, then convince them about how much fun it would be for them *as a player*.  They get to be the moral of the story, get loads of spotlight, and have a conflict to fight against that will turn out very poorly for you if they win.  If you don't want them to know it was you, say that you're impressed by the good roleplay that's coming from it and get any of the other players you know who sincerely like the plotline to also provide support to the player.

 If you're happy to make it a rivalry, or your character is openly trying to assassinate their character, see if you can make a pact not to tell other *players* which is true and which is false.  Yes, that pact benefits you the most but it also makes for a more interesting story and some players may be happy to do that simply to see who, if anyone, manages to figure out the truth of their targeted character's claims.

Hazards of PvP: Destabilisation

So let's look at one potential technique a PvP player in a political arena might use against another PvP player, good old destabilisation (Wikipedia description below):

The word destabilisation can be applied to a wide variety of contexts such as attempts to undermine political, military or economic power. In a psychological context it is used as a technique in brainwashing and abuse to disorient and disarm the victim. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, destabilisation applied to the victim may involve:

• failure to acknowledge good work and value the victim's efforts
• allocation of meaningless tasks
• removal of areas of responsibility without consultation
• repeated reminders of blunders
• setting up to fail
• shifting of goal posts without telling the victim
• persistent attempts to demoralise the victim.

While most PvP players enjoy the cut and thrust of politics, imagine running up against a cunning PvPer who runs a skilful campaign involving these tactics against your own character.  In fact this technique is best used by a superior in your hierarchy, who might be expected to be your ally, like a jealous sire, a vindictive liege lord or simply a high status person within your social group, might do all of these things in a vampire game.  How would you feel if you were subjected to this every session at the game?

If you answered, "I'd be cool with it", I'll bet you have put tactics in place to ensure that it remained okay.  Perhaps:

"I'd be cool with it since my nemesis would be a friend of mine and we'd make a point to meet up outside of game for some positive experiences to remind ourselves that we're not actually out to get each other as people."

and / or...

"I'd be cool with it, though I might be shaking by game's end, as I have a post-game ritual where I systematically 'unskin' the character through ritualistically getting into / out of costume while listening to my character's theme song / songs I personally like and then destressing at the end with a warm shower."

and / or...

"I have an arrangement with my nemesis player that we shake hands before and after session and that if s/he's particularly cruel to me, s/he makes a point to buy me a drink after game or, if s/he already knows a terrible plan is in the works, s/he bakes me cupcakes."

and / or...

"I'd be pre-warned if something truly horrible was about to happen and I'm given veto rights if it's likely to be personally traumatic or character changing."

and / or

"My organisation is full of caring and compassionate people who'd make sure I was okay at the after game debriefing / event.  There'd be lots of hugs and plenty of time to debrief and unwind."

I'd imagine few people would be emotionally okay with a persistent campaign against their character, or even a full session of such actions, unless they had something to keep it all in check and to remind themselves that the person isn't out to get them.  What techniques would you, or have you, used to ensure that this PvP tactic remained fun rather than pushing you out of the game?

Hazards of PvP: Objectification

The Wikipedia entry has a lot to say about objectification, including that a person is objectified if they are used:

• as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
• as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
• as if owned by another (ownership);
• as if interchangeable (fungibility);
• as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
• as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity).

Now a person might be objectified on either an individual or a group basis.  Each has it's own problems and possibilities.

On an individual level, the player might be individually treated as an object because of a political attack set to undermine them which tries to paint them as little more than or due to a more powerful character's prejudices, or due to the individual belonging to an objectified group that has low representation in the game (i.e. being the only female in a realistic medieval LARP or being the only ghoul in a vampire game).

The benefits of objectification for the power players involved is that those who are objectified have their meaningful choices slowly strangled out of them, which is great for an enemy or a rival.

There are also benefits for the player of the objectified character.

Objectification may be a new experience for the player, especially in an exaggerated form.  When reversed so that those most often in power positions are now objectified (such as a medieval game with a gendered role reversal, it can be a powerful teaching tool and growth experience for everyone involved.  While a valid tool for a short-term or weekend campaign, this may still prove tiring in the long-term if the objectification is intense as it is, by its very nature, disempowering.

It can, in the short-term, provided significant protections to new players, such as where a new player might choose to play an unreleased childe of a vampire.  The more experienced player takes responsibility for training and protecting them, including taking the flak of any missteps, while the new player knows that their position is temporary.  Generally, though, these positions are not truly and pointedly 'objectified' outside of the books as the childe is more often seen and treated as a learner than as an interchangeable commodity with no will of its own.

Some people may actually enjoy the challenge, such as those playing ghouls, though in this case it's often good to have an 'out'.  This might be an easy status shift (i.e. a ghoul can become a vampire) but if it is a permanent and unchangeable identity trait then the player may need to create a new character to find a more enabling role.

Be wary of automatically objectified group identifiers which players share in real life unless you're willing to let players cross dress to get out of it, especially when considering a campaign.  It can also be deeply unpleasant, even triggering, to face discrimination both inside your game world and outside of it.  Does your fantasy land or science fiction game really need to make all black people slaves?  Couldn't it have green slaves or genetically modified slaves?

So what's the difference between objectifying a group and an individual?  Well, a group provides a sense of cultural identity where you can feel empowered.  It also allows for all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle underdog conspiracies and group rebellions.  Imagine a vampire game where half of the players are playing ghouls.  Regardless of any intent on the part of the game designers, those ghouls will now create a power bloc of their own even if they are never acknowledged as a faction.  In fact, there would be a secondary game of power and influence within the ghouls themselves which the vampires might not even know exists.  That sounds far more fun than playing the sole canonically silent and disregarded ghoul in a room full of predators.

Groups can also objectify each other even when neither holds a higher status position.  Two enemy tribes might view members of the other group as interchangeable non-entities who can be killed or enslaved merely to obtain more land or crops.  While group members may identify a few important out-group names and faces, they likely won't be thinking of their enemies in terms of being someone else's child with their own hopes, dreams and fears, just like anyone else.

These kinds of in-character schisms can make for some very deep and interesting roleplaying so long as the game is either large enough to allow them to avoid each other or if the objectification is subtle enough to avoid causing *too* much offence.  A vampire game which includes a lot of clannism might have some of the subtle varieties of objectification.  Gangrel are all merely dogs, afte rall.

Regrettably, objectification can also cross the line between players and not just in a discriminatory fashion based on age, gender, etc. 

A player might come to objectify the other players, seeing them as merely being actors for that players' own enjoyment or as faceless props who can be pushed into ideal directions on an out of character level.  The player might feel that their own needs and desires are paramount and that any player who doesn't cater to them is a cold-hearted bastard. 

More commonly, they might just forget that the other player is a *person* first and foremost and they may do or say something insensitive, unfairly take up the spotlight, or ruin another player's chances to do *that one thing* they've spent the entire campaign building up to do, without any thought about how that might make the other player feel.

They might see GM as standing for Game Machine, becoming upset or even irate when the GM doesn't want to take a call about the game at a particular time, or who fail to deliver downtimes on time one week.  They might also see them as tools or props who can be worked against each other, and against the other players, through a clever pattern of flattery and lies.  After all, if one GM falls to burnout then another one will rise up to take their place, right?  Right?

This form of out of character objectification needs to be dealt with promptly, sometimes by literally stating your own humanness and your own rights and needs in a fair and reasonable way which also takes in account their own needs.  If they persist, sometimes you need to show them the door.

So how have you found objectification in your roleplaying games?  Got any good stories on it?

Hazards of PvP

I've been looking into issues of bullying and harassment in various organisations to try to find a way to limit their presence in the LARP group I'm helping to set up.  While the stories can be fascinating exercises of the imagination, no less valid than any other art form or hobby in our lives, they still should be a source of satisfaction and enrichment for all those involved.  When bullying enters the equation, the source is tainted and sometimes destroyed.  While researching the culture of bullying, however, I noticed that many of the listed techniques in the Wikipedia entry all cover successful PvP tactics that can be used within the game itself (objectification, character assassination, etc.).

This article isn't intended to lambast PvP games as unsustainable bully-prone activities that will automatically become toxic to all concerned.  It's intended to analyse why it can sometimes go that way and how to reduce those causes so that we can enjoy PvP games, even political ones (which have the highest emotional risks attached to them).

I may add more articles to this series but for now it will include:

Objectification
Humiliation
Destabilisation

PS. I'm not done with the demon lore write ups.  They're just taking awhile to get to the point where I'm happy with them ... especially Lore of Patterns, which is up next.

One Mistake Does Not A Conspiracy Make

Players are a paranoid lot.  It's understandable.  Their entertainment involves a certain level of vulnerability and trust.  The Game Master can call, at any time, that rocks will fall and everybody dies and game reality shifts accordingly.  So a little bit of suspicion is understandable.  Sometimes the players are right to be suspicious. 

Sometimes the Game Master does something that will cause a lot of problems for a player, showers one player with a lot of benefits, or throws a GMPC into a hero position (which is always problematic because a GMPC, by its definition, cannot truly fail if the GM declares it so nor can the GMPC be blindsided by events - a quality NPC can and will, if the story demands it).

A lot of players are a little too eager to see intent behind all of these actions.  The motivations they level against their GMs is that they are meaningfully trying to show off their power and dominance against the poor unsuspecting players.  Now this does happen, absolutely, but surely it can't be so common as to swallow up almost every GM under the sun? 

If you listen to LARP players, in particular, you'd think that every LARP GM in existence was just on a power trip out to destroy them.  In any particular LARP you'll find a handful of players, at the very least, who regard their GMs with growing concern.

Now I'm not saying that the GM's haven't legitimately screwed up or screwed them over.  I'm just doubting that every GM (especially LARP GM) are out to boost their buddies and slam down everything else, all while gleefully neglecting downtimes and crushing their players every hope and dream.  There are other motives for poor decisions.

What about an overeager GM who simply had a "really cool idea" they wanted to showcase that happened to disempower their players because it really would have fitted a movie better?

What about an inexperienced or poorly supported GM who is easily wowed by a dominant player's rapid speech and seemingly positive ideas?

What about a submissive GM who takes the "Just Say Yes" principle so far the game becomes a mess?

What about the possibility that the player's idea which the GM crushed was a really bad idea, either because it would have caused negative consequences the player wouldn't have enjoyed or because it would have ruined everyone else's fun?

What about the harassed GM who has been hassled by another player and assumes the worst in you because you happen to be next or asking after similar issues?

What about a busy GM whose mind was on a dozen different things at once who simply made a bad call?

What about a GM who legitimately believes their friends happen to be the better roleplayers because they're not wise enough to realise that we are all biased towards looking positively at the actions of our friends?  (This is not an excuse for their behaviour.  It just means that they're being ignorant rather than malicious).

What about a GM who responds badly because your tone of voice or body language indicated that you thought they were a selfish idiot who only wanted to ruin their game?  (Perhaps because you did approach them with that expectation).

What about the burnt out GM who is only running the game out of a sense of obligation and therefore neglects any duty that isn't absolutely necessary to the game occurring?

What about a GM who isn't out to get you but isn't in a position to explain that there's another PC gunning for you and that they're merely the messenger because that would ruin the PvP element in the game?

What about the GM who has a sarcastic tone of voice because they are inwardly very defensive anyway?

I'm not saying that all of these motives are pure or forgivable, some are anything but.  I'm just trying to say that GMs are people, too, capable of making mistakes, having dumb ideas or simply being ignorant. 

While some GMs may be harassment loving bullies, most are not, and if YOUR GM makes only a few mistakes, then it's a good idea to thank them profusely for being awesome 99% of the time and, when a mistake is made, either give them the benefit of the doubt and either forgive them or talk to them about how something looked or made you feel so that they know where the pitfalls lie.

In other words, one mistake or judgement that lands against you doesn't mean there is a malicious conspiracy against you.  When people approach their GMs with a conspiracy in mind, then yes, the GM is naturally going to feel attacked and defensive because their very credibility *is* being threatened and once that is gone it's pretty much gone for good.

When is a player less / more than a single player?

Every game style has an ideal number of players.  Just like a "buddy cop" movie is best with two players, so are games which involve a lot of witness interviewing, clue hunting and suspect timetabling.  Three is doable, sure, though sometimes one player may need to be quiet so that the other two can grill a suspect with greater precision and, yes, a single player could certainly be up to the task though they'll need a little more verbal guidance and hinting from the GM since they won't have any other mental assistance in the game.

Naturally a game of high adventure and wacky hi-jinx works well with the usual D&D group of four so that each niche can be filled and each player has opportunities to bounce off the other characters during the long stints without others in the group.  A dungeon crawl can cope well with 5 - 6 players, at most, though only if they know the rules well and won't make each round last a terribly long time.

So with all these facts in mind, on top of the GM's own needs and skill, each game will have an ideal number of players.  Having said that, some players take up more, or less, of the spotlight, time and energy within the game.  Therefore, in terms of seats at the game table, some players are worth more, or less, than a single player.

The half a players are the quiet ones.  They may have stellar moments occasionally but generally they're content to watch.  You could put eight of these around a table intended for four and so long as they know the rules well enough you wouldn't have much trouble running the game.

The three-quarter players make excellent sidekicks.  Even when they're in the spotlight, they tend to be in it to transfer it to someone else.  Rather than engaging much with NPCs or decision making, they instead serve to reinforce another player's decisions and reflect the other characters in a way that serves to gift them more limelight.

The single players are your usual run-of-the-mill player.  They like the spotlight but are happy to share.  They draw attention but not too much.  They're happy to roleplay but they generally won't slow things down to do it and when they make decisions it's generally in the best interests of the group. 

While a dedicated roleplayer whose quieter than most could be worth only one seat at the table, generally more roleplayers take up more than one.  Why is this?  Because those who are eagerly playing their character will want more time to talk, more opportunities to engage with plot, more chances to grow and develop their character, and more descriptions that emphasise who they're playing.  Don't get me wrong.  A hearty roleplayer isn't the only sort who can take up more than one seat but they tend to be mostly from this side.

When you get four hearty roleplayers at one table, each needing as much time and having as many opinions as two regular players, you really have a table of eight.  The benefit is that having a group of "eight" drawn from four players often means that you can sit back and let them "have at it".  You'll have plenty of time to think up the next part of the plot as they interact with each other.  The trouble is that steering eight players is like herding cats, especially if each cat has its own opinions.

Of course, if you have several hearty roleplayers you're probably best off looking at running smaller groups anyway.  If it's Pathfinder, two to three players aren't going to fill every niche but that shouldn't be a problem because you can simply tailor the encounters around the group's failings.  Odds are the game will revolve around decisions, antics and character arcs anyhow with combats relegated to an amusing and strategic mini-game designed to up the ante.

Player Tip: PCs and ... Tact?

So I was taking a look at one of Shimmin Beg's brilliant comments on another page and realised he'd brought up a point which I'm sure we're all familiar with when playing our characters and that's the question of tact, diplomacy and, well, sheer bloodymindedness.  I will exchange asterisks for numbers so that I can discuss alternatives afterwards but for now, take a look at the quoted comment:

"In particular, there can be an awkward clash of realisms when PCs and NPCs are working at cross-purposes. Players expect quite a lot of leeway in their actions and interactions, according to relevant genre tropes, doing things like:

* talking about NPCs in front of them (openly or by blatantly forming a whispering huddle)
* attempted bribery
* deliberate or semi-random threats, sometimes just to test the waters
* assuming their interests and goals are the most important to everyone
* generally giving excellent grounds for suspicion
* intruding on privacy without appointments
* asking large amounts of nosy and personal questions of strangers
* being highly reluctant to give away anything about themselves
* omitting small talk and niceties
* chopping and changing approach between flattery, formality, threat, wheedle, deceit and frankness

All of which would be disastrous as regular strategies in real life. At the same time, they tend to expect NPCs to be fairly simplistic, having one attitude to the party (from Hostile to BFFs), a small set of motivations and very little sense of personal pride, honour, politeness or ethics."

There are reasons behind this actions (which he describes in that Comments) and most of it, in my experience, boils down to expedience, keeping it In Character, and genre conventions.  It is more expedient to behave in this way because, regardless of time limits on the action, most players want to keep the story moving forward.  Many of these actions allow the players to decide among themselves what to do without discussing the whole thing out of character constantly.  Finally, in most games it is *just fine* to behave in these ways and to expect a more realistic mode of behaviour would be just silly, not to mention impractical.

But let's suppose that you're aiming for a more realistic / immersive game.  You don't want to do those things, or you know your Game Master's NPCs won't deal with you if you do, but you're trying to figure out ways around it.

Talking about NPCs in front of them (openly or by blatantly forming a whispering huddle)

There's a good reason for doing this.  How else can you, as a group, democratically decide on a way forward without either deliberating out of character (and killing the immersion for numerous reasons) or by going aside to discuss things?  The other problem can occur when the conversation begins logically enough with the kind of group querying the excluded (yet nearby) NPC won't mind but then the conversation veers straight into forbidden territory because you forgot the NPC was present.  It might be that you could work out a 'reminder code' with your GM and the other players - perhaps to rap their knuckles on the table to remind you all that the NPC is present and that this isn't appropriate behaviour.  Then, if it truly were a memory error, you could be allowed to take back what you said.

Of course, this won't stop the group huddle from happening but at least it might cause you all to be more circumspect about the situation.  The other trick is to consider it just another obstacle in the game.  You might want to deliberate about someone in the real world and, if so, what would you do to get that space to do so?  If you don't get that option, well, sometimes you have to fight in enclosed spaces and that's restricting as well.  Take the restriction as part of the in-game consideration and live with it.

Attempted bribery

If the game has some form of Empathy or Sense Motive skill, use it.  Alternatively a Knowledge Local or Politics skill could be used to let you know the appropriate methods of bribery.  Also bear in mind that the more lawful a society and the lesser the need for that extra money, the less likely bribery will work at all.  In other words, you'll have a better shot with a bribe in Riddleport or the World of Darkness than in Delta Green or Andoran.  When in doubt, try some subtle clues.  Ask "if there's anything I can do to speed things along or change your mind?"  If their ears perk up, perhaps inch your way along with it.  Even those who like being bribed don't like you to arrogantly wave money in their face like you're training a dog with a treatie.  If the person instead points out all the errors in your application or logic, leave it.  They're not interested.

Deliberate or semi-random threats, sometimes just to test the waters

There's a thick line between dominance and intimidation, but in a roleplaying game where you're often dealing with a semi-distracted GM and players, that line can appear pretty thin indeed.  Your best bet is to keep the threats in your pocket until you know you need them as generally most threats will cause the NPCs to "push back" in some way.  This may mean closing down the conversation, getting in your way, or otherwise trying to protect their honour.  If you're doing it to test the waters, accept that you won't get a positive response from them again (at least, not unless you save their life or do something epic to show your character complexity).  At the very least, people don't like those who threaten them.  If you don't mind those consequences, and you're not irritating the other players, then go ahead.  Being a threatening figure is a valid character concept, after all, just don't expect to gain many alliances out of it.

Assuming their interests and goals are the most important to everyone

This is a pretty fair assumption, generally.  Your playing protagonists.  Sometimes your goals really *are* the most important thing going on.  Just be aware that even if your needs do trump everything, you may still need to explain why to people.  Not everyone will know that your actions will stave off an apocalypse.  If what you're doing isn't so lofty, bear in mind this simple creed: "If you make other people believe that fulfilling your needs also help them fulfil their own, they'll be far more amenable."  So maybe quickly explain why your actions are relevant to them, if there's any trouble.  This needn't be longwinded.  Generally a quick summary will do.

Generally giving excellent grounds for suspicion

This might involve dramatic pauses that make the truth sound like lies, speaking mysteriously, or breaking off from the rest of the group to start playing with the merchandise.  It could involve anything, really, that might be seen as suspicious.  Often this is because what you're doing is so big and important in your mind that you fail to see things from the other person's point-of-view.  Sometimes it's because you come to game so that you can forget such a constant drain on the human mind through the constant use of empathy.  It's pretty realistic that those involved in suspicious actions would generally appear suspiciously (because they, too, may forget how they appear to others) but if it's important to you to appear trustworthy or easygoing, nominate another player (not the GM) to tap you on the shoulder if you start being too dodgy.

Intruding on privacy without appointments 

A hard one to avoid.  You often need to ask questions and reach those people pretty quickly.  If time isn't of the essence, it may be worth just saying: "We make an appointment" and getting your GM to time skip to that point.  Otherwise, come up with a reason ahead of time for the person to want to speak with you.  At the very least, don't barge into their office unless you think they'll shred the evidence.  It takes little time to speak with the receptionist first.  Just have your questions ready and in priority order, in case they don't want to speak to you too long.

Asking large amounts of nosy and personal questions of strangers

 Anyway you can get some official clout here?  Become a private investigator or get a writ from the city guard?  This is pretty much impossible to avoid though sometimes apologising for the need to ask such questions, showing confidence without being arrogant, and being persistent can pay dividends when you can't appeal to your own authority.

Being highly reluctant to give away anything about themselves

If you have no reason to fear them, you might as well use the opportunity to shine by revealing tidbits about your character as often these hints can generate rapport and build trust, especially if your revelations connect to the NPC's own desires and history.  It also lets the other players get to know your PC a bit better.  If you haven't thought of enough background detail, make something up and decide later on if you were lying or not.  If you fear the results of such personal information in the wrong hands, lie and lie well.

Omitting small talk and niceties

While you may not want to spend half a session discussing the weather, you could always say that your characters does it and skip along if your GM is willing.  Alternatively, you could always make it *feel* like you used small talk and niceties.  Think about a television show.  They have less time to get more done than you do yet they can still reflect small talk and niceties.  Try using "please" and "thank you", where appropriate, even if you don't believe in it.  A quick "Hello, how do you do?" can provide a sense of thoughtful nicetie without having to go into things for ages.  When barging into a person's office, however, avoid small talk.  They probably want you gone so you're best off cutting to the chase.

Chopping and changing approach between flattery, formality, threat, wheedle, deceit and frankness

The hardest thing to change, really.  On an individual level you can keep it together a lot more than during the chaos of a multi-person conversation where each PC has their own style and perspective on what should work.  Even if each PC is taking the right path, the resulting muddle of all of their attempts will likely confuse and close up the NPC, but you hardly want to shut them up, right?  If the GM keeps NPC conversations like in a television show, revealing yet quick, then it shouldn't be a problem for two PCs to take charge of any particular conversation, swapping out as new NPCs are met.  In games where an NPC conversation can easily take thirty minutes, it becomes far more awkward.  Where possible, decide on your tactic in advance but don't let yourselves be swayed by the need to find the "perfect approach".  You don't want a half hour argument between players for a five minute conversation.  Most attempts, plied with consistency, will get you reasonable results.

So yeah, what do you guys reckon?  Any further advice on this stuff?  I could certainly use some pointers as I've noticed it in some of the parties I've been in.  I find it gets harder the larger the group as well.