I think it's good to clarify the difference between an antagonist PC and an antagonistic PC.
An antagonistic PC is just a jerk. They tend to be self-regulating. Either the player does it in such an annoying fashion that people start avoiding that PC, or they do it well enough that it's not a big deal.
An antagonist PC, on the other hand, by the strict narrative definition, is one working against the protagonist. They're actively getting in the way of other PCs, messing up their plans, being the challenge that needs to be overcome. This is whole other level than someone who's just a jerk ICly.
It'd be nice if people could handle it better and realize that a Sherlock-Moriarity give and take, victories and defeats can be awesome. In a TTRPG or sandbox among friends, you'd have a better chance. On a public game? Decades of experience tell us otherwise.
@carma said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
The only thing I didn't do was start singing like a Disney villain.
I don't think it is only the antagonist type characters that need to be considered but also the 'good people' since if they avoid antagonists. Which is not entirely uncalled for since a lot of the 'bad guy' types are people who use being an antagonist types as a means to be a jerk to people for no reason and go 'I am just playing my character'. As a result the types of antagonists who go in prepared to be on the losing side or know defeat is basically their end goal get ignored because people 'don't want that drama'. So, I think it should be more 'How to get the good guys and bad guys to work together' over how to handle a specific group. Support needs to be available for both sides and little nudges to encourage people to pull back or push a little harder at getting RP.
Just a quick thought: I encounter way more 'White Hats' or 'good guys' that are antagonistic and ooc problematic than bad guys. I've encountered way more communication and community in antagonistic spheres barring a few jarring examples.
Sadly these examples tend to be the only antagonists people care about or remember
.
So I don't buy the 'Assholes are the only people who are likely to play villains' argument.'
In regards to MUSH where collaboration is very important, and more so in smaller games since they are prone to rolling big antagonistic fish in a small pond, part of the responsibility is for the players who play those to ensure they aren't going to make other characters unplayable.
In other words: If my antagonist expresses himself by stabbing people in the face that's bad; I can't collaborate with dead PCs. If he exercises his Princely antagonistic authority by locking PCs in dungeons thus preventing them from meeting others that's also bad.
The key is to create RP opportunities through IC antagonism. A good bad-guy is priceless since they can encourage others to band together to stop him, offers RP hooks to everyone who wants to have something to discuss, they can attempt to pull minions into their evil plots, etc.
I dunno what else I can say here that hasn't been said in ten thousand other posts. For whatever my own two cents are worth, "how to play an antagonist(ic) PC" is something that varies from game to game and is a thing that the people running the game should manage from the outset, if they want antagonist(ic) PCs at all.
If someone's playing their character in a way that's antagonistic to the point of disrupting how a faction operates IC, or that leaders of the faction are more willing to change how they operate than risk another evening spent butting heads in a scene with Antagonistic PC, then IMO it becomes something staff should address and decide whether or not that's what they're okay with in their game culture (it might be a game culture where the expected answer for someone being too frequently and too frustratingly insubordinate is just to blast them with a shotgun, who knows).
For antagonists, which @faraday rightly pointed out are different than just antagonistic PCs, staff should be even more actively involved in putting forward what they expect from all sides of the conflict.
I'm going to make up a WoD example. It's not going to be a very good one because whatever I'm on my lunch break.
In the one Vampire splat, you've got Camarilla and Sabbat and they're against one another as one would expect. Staff's job there is to be clear with everyone about the rules of engagement and what can be done where and when. Otherwise PVP happens and someone yells "no fair" -- which will happen anyway but at least if staff is proactive in describing the kind of PVP culture they expect or the kind of PVP rules they mandate, hopefully people will know what they're in for if they play.
In the other Vampire splat, you've got Camarilla and Sabbat and the staff there is hoping to do a metaplot story about werewolves circling the wagons around the both of them. Staff's job there is to make it clear that the antagonists are the NPC werewolves, even if the Cam and Sabbat can be antagonistic toward one another in how they work together (or fail to work together) to keep their city from being gobbled up by The Howling II. Staff will also need to be proactive in keeping that wolfy metaplot active and engaging, because otherwise, people will get bored and default to "well, I'm a Sabbat, and that Camarilla just insulted me, so it's on."
Anyway, my point is, whatever the way to play either a jerk or a bad guy is on any given game, it has to be something that the people at the top of the pyramid have given thought, and made those thoughts clear toward the player. Cuz otherwise people will just do whatever they think fits and it's never one size fits all.
@tinuviel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
It's important to note that there is a difference between PCs who are antagonistic, and groups that are designed to be antagonistic.
My Ventrue and your Toreador are PCs who have antagonism between them. My Camarilla and your Sabbat are in groups that are designed to be antagonistic. The latter is harder to deal with and would probably require policy, the former is... basically expected in many kinds of games. So OOC communication is an absolute must, and that's basically it.
I think as a rule of thumb, it's not worth the headache to have militaristically opposed groups (like Camarilla and Sabbat) in the same game. People will be way too eager to jump to any justification for murder and it can be hard to come up with good non-combat scenes.
That said it's possible to create a PvP centric game as long as you carefully manage the game community to create a focus on story over winning. Most game settings tend to have competing factions of various sorts and you can try to set up situations where people can arrange their own faction to come out better which doesn't require the other side to be murdered.
@littlelizard said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
Just a quick thought: I encounter way more 'White Hats' or 'good guys' that are antagonistic and ooc problematic than bad guys. I've encountered way more communication and community in antagonistic spheres barring a few jarring examples.
Sadly these examples tend to be the only antagonists people care about or remember
.So I don't buy the 'Assholes are the only people who are likely to play villains' argument.'
Usually if you have 'the good guys' and 'the evil guys' in a game, the 'evil guys' tend to be massively outnumbered and are usually the ones that have to deal with people randomly deciding it would be fun to murder them.
The one exception is a post-Clone Wars era star wars game I was in where Empire had the population advantage. It worked out ok since there existed a rule of sorts you couldn't kill people, just capture them and let them escape later.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
@groth said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
I think as a rule of thumb, it's not worth the headache to have militaristically opposed groups (like Camarilla and Sabbat) in the same game.
I'm pretty sure that any NWoD game I can remember with vampires involved militaristically-opposed groups thrown together. Sanctified-Crone-Dragon conflict is inevitable, as is Invictus-Carthian. One may argue that it isn't quite as diametrically-opposed as Camarilla-Sabbat relations, but I disagree.
That aside, yes, policy and staff oversight are important, but they always are so we are talking about truisms.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@reversed said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
If someone's playing their character in a way that's antagonistic to the point of disrupting how a faction operates IC
The gray area here is in defining just what 'disruptive' means and just what is unwelcome.
It's the very essence of IC antagonism to be disruptive. By definition you are in the way of what someone wants. However not being able to get what they want is not necessarily a bad thing at all since in many ways that's exactly what makes it valuable in the first place. If your Elder is blocking me with her vote from achieving a rank I want that adds value to the rank which would otherwise be a nearly empty string set in my +sheet.
The other aspect here is players are quite notorious for not being able to tell the difference between not being immediately able to get what their characters want and being harassed or singled out in an unconstructive manner.
Here's my thoughts and they are not right or wrong, they are just thoughts. It means it also doesn't invalidate your thoughts if you disagree.
I think if you are going to play a character that is not a 'white hat' on a game that is a majority of white hats a few things have to be in place. The first being the player cannot be a jerk OOC. I think they have to be understanding and co-operative. They can't be the 'it's what my PC would do' (shrug) sort of person. This moves into the other area, which is also OOC. If you are going to take a stance that goes against the views or are traditional to non-traditional, you have to be willing to pull back the 'jerk' part of it if it makes PC uncomfortable.
The PC itself needs to have connections, friends, etc. They need to be more well-rounded than just to sow discontent. They also have to have a reason for their thoughts. Which can be an RP avenue but not a quick fix. Maybe they have a bias. Maybe it's a culture. Something that time and experience can be a 'redemption' story.
That's just my thoughts though.
@arkandel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
@reversed said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
If someone's playing their character in a way that's antagonistic to the point of disrupting how a faction operates IC
The gray area here is in defining just what 'disruptive' means and just what is unwelcome.
It's the very essence of IC antagonism to be disruptive. By definition you are in the way of what someone wants. However not being able to get what they want is not necessarily a bad thing at all since in many ways that's exactly what makes it valuable in the first place. If your Elder is blocking me with her vote from achieving a rank I want that adds value to the rank which would otherwise be a nearly empty string set in my +sheet.
The other aspect here is players are quite notorious for not being able to tell the difference between not being immediately able to get what their characters want and being harassed or singled out in an unconstructive manner.
Right. I agree that it's a gray area, which is why every game that wants to include the possibility needs to nail down just what their game's shade of gray is, and proactively communicate that, not wait for people to cross invisible lines.
@rightmeow said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
The PC itself needs to have connections, friends, etc. They need to be more well-rounded than just to sow discontent. They also have to have a reason for their thoughts.
Beware of trying to codify what makes for a 'good' antagonist.
Think of the worst, most abusive examples of predatorial assholes in gaming. They all had connections, friends, and they could offer long treatises on exactly what their reasons were.
They were, also, predatorial assholes.
@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
One may argue that it isn't quite as diametrically-opposed as Camarilla-Sabbat relations, but I disagree.
Not only would I disagree, I'd say that the Invictus-Carthian and Dragon-Crone-Sanctified conflict is actually a bit more diametrically opposed than Camarilla-Sabbat, and less predictable since allegiances can shift without having to uproot your entire social circle.
Right, but almost more importantly you need to make sure that you have actual White Hats and not just Redcaps-in-waiting.
@arkandel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
Beware of trying to codify what makes for a 'good' antagonist.
A good antagonist can still be a shitty player. A good protagonist can still be a shitty player.
@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
@groth said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
I think as a rule of thumb, it's not worth the headache to have militaristically opposed groups (like Camarilla and Sabbat) in the same game.
I'm pretty sure that any NWoD game I can remember with vampires involved militaristically-opposed groups thrown together. Sanctified-Crone-Dragon conflict is inevitable, as is Invictus-Carthian. One may argue that it isn't quite as diametrically-opposed as Camarilla-Sabbat relations, but I disagree.
That aside, yes, policy and staff oversight are important, but they always are so we are talking about truisms.
None of the nWoD groups are at war with each other, even the Carthians and Invictus can live together in the same city just fine in large part because even though the Carthians are directly opposed to the Invictus they're quite capable of working within the rules and in fact their specialization as a covenant is making sure everyone follows the rules.
The Dragons are not as a group opposed to anyone, their conflicts with other groups tend to relate to sites of interest or poorly conceived experiments.
@arkandel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
@rightmeow said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
The PC itself needs to have connections, friends, etc. They need to be more well-rounded than just to sow discontent. They also have to have a reason for their thoughts.
Beware of trying to codify what makes for a 'good' antagonist.
Think of the worst, most abusive examples of predatorial assholes in gaming. They all had connections, friends, and they could offer long treatises on exactly what their reasons were.
They were, also, predatorial assholes.
Defining what makes a good antagonist can be complicated however I've found an easy rule that identifies all the worst PvP encounters I've come across. It's when one player attempts to use the other character as a prop instead trying to create a mutual story.
You can always justify whatever but if the other player isn't feeling like you're respecting them they're not going to have a good time.
I'm all about shared enjoyable experiences. Both ways on that. I want to enjoy what I am typing. I want you to enjoy what you are typing.
This goes with my always happy, super huggy, super complimentary PC too. It's not everyone's bag of chips to have the always chipper one. So I tone her down when needed too.
@carma said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:
I'm probably the exact person you'd want as a antagonist, since I enjoy playing to lose.
Frankly, this is the only mindset that actually works for antagonist PCs, in my experience.
It's fun to play a villain, but if you're not ultimately there to serve the story in the long run and give the "good guys" the big win in the end, things tend to go pretty sour pretty quickly. What losing actually looks like can turn out to be surprisingly negotiable if you're easy to get along with and liberally share the fun, but that you will lose is kind of accepted as inevitable by the other players anyway, so bitching and complaining when you do is just going to spoil it for everyone, yourself included.
My own favorite example of this in action was playing a vampire on a Buffy game. I accepted from the get go that he was going to get dusted eventually, and that trying to kill every white hat just because "vampires are evil" was going to be fucking miserable OOC. So I found constant excuses to be foiled, let PCs escape, etc. In the end, he was captured and asploded. He didn't "win," but I sure did. It is still one of the best and most memorable times I have ever had on a MU, and I have nothing but fond memories of the players I "opposed."
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\
A good question is what would a payer expect from another player playing an antagonist character that isn't met by having it be a NPC, or a staff NPC?
Typically, I would say characterization from a dedicated player, and creative surprises that aren't a guaranteed win for the "good guys".
Yet I don't think players really value either of those.
Is there more?
If the 'antagonist' side only exists to be a foil to the 'protagonist' side, it should be NPCs. If your game is about robbers, the cops should be NPCs. But in the cops and robbers game, you've got bands of robbers, and they're all somewhat antagonistic against each other since they all want to win.
If you want to have pseudo-antagonistic groups, give them things to do that aren't just "fuck with the other guys" all the time. Make the actual antagonistic moments matter by emphasising that they are rare.
