As I’ve mentioned before, when I read some of the erstwhile game theorists I frequently feel as if I’m reading — Not another language, nor something that is merely densely packed language like academic jargon — something that is talking about a completely foreign experience. Being a long time admirer and occasionally a player and a GameMaster I find that hard to believe. My guess is that I simply don’t have experiences that are nearly as focused, nor the vocabulary to describe fine distinctions in play.
In response I’ve been reading forums at The Forge. In particular, the RPG Theory forums. Strangely as it may be considering this is, in theory, the belly of the beast, I find the discussions taking place here to be much more lucid to me — Perhaps my feelings of incomprehension hinge upon the lack of proper context. In any case, it’s somewhat disappointing that the Theory forums have been shut down, but at least they are still publicly available for perusal.
The other day I was reading about “Alignment” as a possible anti-Pattern in game design. This terminology might seem a bit foreign unless you have a coding background. Essentially, though, what the author of the thread was speculating is that D&D’s “Alignment” system is the worst possible solution to various game objectives and should never be used. As much as I dislike D&D’s alignment system I have to think it’s not entirely without merit. Looking towards Alignment as an anti-Pattern is almost assuredly a personal response rather than an objective assessment.
What I enjoy about reading threads such as this is they help to clarify my own understanding of the game (in this instance, D&D). Better than I could manage, the people break down Alignment into various functions and patterns. It’s interesting although a bit tangential. What really kept me reading was the hope of learning more about this game called Nobilis.
Nobilis seems like an intriguing game. In the context of the thread, it’s introduced with a given set of “Codes” that are compared to D&D’s alignment. Examples given were:
Code of the Heaven
1.) Beauty is the highest principle.
2.) Justice is a form of beauty.
3.) Lesser beings should respect their betters.
Code of the Wild
1.) Freedom is the highest principle.
2.) Sanity and mundanity are prisons.
3.) Give in kind with a gift received.
Frankly, I find this absolutely fascinating and am just barely restraining myself from writing up a whole set of Codes for my own game. Ultimately I might end up doing so, my main worry is that with the number of ideas floating around in my head at this moment that I am at serious risk of completely throwing away the concept that my campaign is a “D&D” campaign and starting to implement my own system altogether.
As much as I’m tempted by the prospect, I know that it’d just be completely unfair for my players.
Hi,
If you consider that standard D&D is about a party vs. monsters, alignment has this way of creating inter-party conflict- shifting the focus from Us vs. Them to Us vs. Us. It’s considered an anti-pattern because it takes away from the focus of the game.
For comparison, you should check out gameplay in Tunnels in Trolls, or even dungeon-y boardgames such as Dungeon, Descent or GW’s Hero Quest (not to be confused with Issaries’ HeroQuest, gah). Players work together and you don’t see inter-party conflict at any point. What’s the difference? No alignment to drive spikes of conflict amongst the party.
Chris,
Yeah, I agree. Alignment does create friction in the party — I did tell my players we weren’t going to use it, and technically we aren’t using it, but my players don’t seem to have completely internalized that idea.
The reason why it’s complicated is because we have varying levels of expertise and general investment in the campaign. Half my group has never played D&D (or any other RPG for that matter) except via Computer RPGs. I think for that mentality alignment is the larger part of characterization, which is why they cling to flimsy alignment-related excuses for antisocial behavior. The trouble is weaning them off of the mentality that you basically need alignment to determine what your character is like.
…which is why they cling to flimsy alignment-related excuses for antisocial behavior.
I’m sorry is this the newbies or the hardcore D&D’ers who are doing this? From my experience it’s the hardcore D&D heads who have a hard time getting past the alignment issue.
For other folks, I usually find have an easier time when you give them enough things to put their characters in context (”Here’s this kingdom, with these people, factions, and problems. Who are you, where do you fit in, and what matters to you?”)
Well, specifically, there’s two players in the group who, to my knowledge, have no experience with RPGs except D&D they have played on the computer or consoles. One of these players claims to have a level 700+ Sorceress in one of these computer-based D&D games (I don’t even know how or why that would happen, aside from cheating, which he denies…).
Although I’m largely in agreement that a totally green RPGer would probably take easily to a no-alignment setting, I think the situation here is one in which expectations have been significantly formed by conventions of CRPGs — NPCs that are totally oblivious to your actions but react to you based upon your alignment, NPCs who have no agendas and will stand in one spot to deliver their text-box of dialogue come hell or high water, and extremely Gamist, combat-centric play.
Ah, ok, gotcha. Fascinating- though I’ve heard of folks assuming similar tactical decisions apply from CRPGs to tabletops, I’ve never heard of someone assuming the character interactions would be the same.
Care to share an example of the anti-social behaviors? Is it stuff like item hogging or PVP tactics?
Let me set up the situation:
All of the PCs gather in one of the larger cities in my game world. They stumble across a dead body in the street, get attacked, taken in by the guard for questioning and are essentially sprung by one of the more personable nobles in the city, who all of the characters swear allegiance to and in exchange get basic needs fulfilled such as food and lodging. (Skipping over some stuff for brevity.)
They’re called to investigate why trade shipments through this small town have stopped. The town is located in a critical pass through the mountains and is thus a crucial trade route. They gather their things and head over to the town. When they get to the town they discover it’s beset with a plague and there’s a tribe of kobolds causing trouble.
The players go to wipe out the kobolds. They find them inside of a mine in the mountains. Inside their are several small traps and ambushes set by the kobolds until they finally reach a natural cave formation where the kobolds are entrenched. The Paladin and the Fighter (”Good”) moved up to attack the Kobolds. The Dread Necromancer (”Neutral”) used a crossbow as best he could, while the Hexblade and the Warlock (”Evil”) hid behind stalagmites. The Hexblade and Warlock had been plotting all session long about how to rid themselves of the “Good” characters. When the Paladin and Fighter fell to the ground bleeding out, they finally emerged from their defensive crouches and started to use a few of their abilities, expecting to mop the floor with the kobolds.
When things didn’t work out the three remaining characters fled the scene. The group set up camp outside the mine entrance, despite my repeated hints that they might want to choose a better location to camp in. I was about to have the kobolds come and kill them in their sleep, but the players of the Paladin and Fighter were so irritated by their behavior that they rolled up a pair of bandits and stole everything the Hexblade and Warlock owned and left them for dead in the nearby town. Normally I wouldn’t allow that sort of thing, but it was definitely justified.
Both the Warlock and the Hexblade caught the plague and I did an extended backstory sequence with the Warlock where he played himself approximately two or three years earlier and how he was betrayed out of his birthright by his sister. It was literally like pulling teeth trying to get him to participate in meaningful dialogue with the NPCs. About the only thing I can recall him saying, when facing down his sister’s claim that she was the rightful heir (due to suspicions that her brother’s bloodline was impure, since he is basically albino) was, “Die in a fire.”
As you can expect, that wasn’t very convincing to the adjudicators of this dispute.
Actually, this behavior is nothing new to D&D, and has nothing to do with them being newbies or CRPGer’s-
Two questions:
1. Why was Evil alignment allowed as an option?
2. How does giving the two players bandits to “take revenge” really help the issue?
It sounds to me like what you wanted was a game about party vs. monsters. Evil alignment is almost always a straightaway neon sign that the game is going to turn into PVP antics.
I’m not seeing how the bandit attack is really going to teach them to not be anti-social as opposed to having explained the expectations and drawn clear boundaries from the start.
1. Like I said before, I told the players that I wouldn’t be using alignment. We weren’t using any effects or powers which make alignment a part of the physical reality of the game. Any such designation that the players may have talked about (being “evil” or being “good”) was purely their mental conception of their characters. I certainly wasn’t pleased when alignment terms were being bandied about, but I don’t really see a way that I can enforce that they not be used, or that players not think of their characters in terms of alignment.
2. The alternative to having the bandits show up and rob them was having the kobolds kill them in their sleep. As much as I can see that permitting petty vindictive behavior is problematic, doing nothing would reinforce that engaging in such passive-aggressive behavior is permissable. It’s definitely not and there needed to be some kind of penalization for that. I’d prefer not to senselessly kill off characters (as by the kobolds) if it can be helped, so basically I thought it was the best of a bad bunch of options.
…doing nothing would reinforce that engaging in such passive-aggressive behavior is permissable
Check out what I wrote- I didn’t suggest doing nothing, I suggested talking to the people at the table- person to person and getting the issue cleared up. If what you want is a game about the party vs. the monsters, and people veer from that, stop the game and talk to the people. Trying to “teach lessons” by punishing the characters is a passive-aggressive action in return!
I mean, think about when people have arguments and do stuff like, “Well, I don’t like how he forgot to do the dishes, so I’m not going to take out the garbage, but I won’t tell him, I’ll just let him figure it out!” and all you end up with is a messy kitchen. It’s much easier to talk straight to the people, and lay out clear expectations and boundaries.
“Dude, this game is about a -band of heroes- fighting against monsters. What part of your character ideas fit either a ‘band’ or ‘hero’?”
These are the kinds of expectations you have to put down before people even roll their characters up, and they’re also the kinds of things you have to be clear on during play.