Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them

[Arkandel]

To also revisit the original question in this thread ("how to handle antagonists") I think an important piece of the answer is fostering faith in the system.

That is not easy. The MU* culture is very cautious, bordering on paranoid, and trusting one's fellow players is not at all a given.

Hell, trusting staff isn't. There is so much baggage! Is staff placing hurdles in my PC's way to make the journey more interesting, or is it that they don't like me? Is it that they want their buddies to get it instead than me? Is it?

That's where I'd begin. Because it is different when the antagonist happens to have earned a good reputation. When ES ran her occasional black hats people lined up to have their characters' souls crushed. It can happen.

[Derp]

@arkandel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

bordering on

[Ganymede]

@arkandel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

It's the perceived prestige they want, and the access to 'inside circles', not the work associated with the positions.

Sure, I understand that. You know what I don't see much of, though? Staff pushing players to figure out the leadership structure themselves.

To Derp's point, I resigned my PC when Echoes' vampire staff decided to not allow PCs as top-tier leadership in their respective covenants. I disagreed with the decision strongly, but I understand the bases for it. In my opinion, if you do not provide opportunities for leadership you are not going to draw in leaders. And I think you want leaders on games, especially World of Darkness games.

Anecdotally, pressing PCs to take leadership and initiative was easier on Old World of Darkness games.

[Arkandel]

@ganymede Without knowing the specifics of the game I can't comment on that, but it is a difficult balance to strike. Unfortunately, much like real politics, made-up power attracts the wrong kinds of people who are in for the benefits while the folks you want helping out are often reluctant to step up.

It might be the same with antagonism. That perfect storm of personality, communication skills, ability to reach out across the IC/OOC barrier to help the other player trust you even if they mistrust your character is rare.

[Derp]

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

To Derp's point, I resigned my PC when Echoes' vampire staff decided to not allow PCs as top-tier leadership in their respective covenants. I disagreed with the decision strongly, but I understand the bases for it. In my opinion, if you do not provide opportunities for leadership you are not going to draw in leaders. And I think you want leaders on games, especially World of Darkness games.

That was a contested decision. On Echoes, you pretty much had each little sphere as its own kingdom. I had Mage (Harvester) with some assistance in Werewolf, which was mostly Ecliptic. And then Moonshrimp had Vampire.

We did not always agree on what the best course for the game would be, but there were certain points where we pretty much just took a vote 2-1. Ruling out PC leadership was part of that.

Ultimately, it comes down to levels of control. Mage and Werewolf had some external control in that the Elders and Council, etc., were controlled by NPCs. We could help direct the boots on the ground experience from there. Vampire had no such thing going for it, and we were frequently confronted with the 'well it is PC-controlled so go talk to them' excuse. So we decided to remove that as an excuse.

When you let PCs run the show, you, as staff, lose that ability, for the most part. You have to rely on the PCs themselves to do that. To dish out consequences and steer the flavor of interactions. And if they idle, you have to give them a reasonable chance to get back to it. If they disagree with you, then you either have to push them forcibly back along the path you want to see on the game or find some kind of IC external force to do it.

Ultimately, it's almost always a mess, and creates more headaches than it's worth. Players can be leaders in the sphere without being at the top of the food chain. That is not a necessity for pretty much any game. You can have some pretty devoted shepherds who have no title or official authority whatsoever.

But those titles and official authority positions can bring your game to a grinding halt in a hurry in the WoD. In many ways, PC leaders are even more problematic than overt PC antagonists because they often do end up working in direct opposition to other players, or at best being so negligent that it has much the same effect.

People keep telling me that this is somehow a necessary thing, for PCs to be able to have something to strive for. But never, ever (1) on one of my games, will the Throne be something within their grasp. I am not relinquishing that level of control over my game world to people that I don't trust to actually act on it in a way that betters the game. YMMV.

(1) I can think of a rare handful of exceptions to this, but honestly I doubt the circumstances would ever arise to get there, so effectively never.

[Ganymede]

@derp

Again, I understand why the choice was made.

You can have shepherds with no title, but you won't (at least, so rarely that, I might as well talk in absolutes from experience). And you don't need to give over the keys to the game to have PCs in recognized positions of leadership who are doing something to keep the game going with or without staff intervention. The concept of friendly competition exists without existential crises, and I've been a part of at least three such scenarios, one of which occurred on Echoes.

It doesn't need to be a crown or even control. I haven't played on a Vampire game in at least a decade where a PC with a title required staff intervention to carry through with IC punishments as needed. Maybe I'm just lucky? Or maybe the games on which I played had the right mix of players.

Anyhow, I see your point, but I disagree with it. Two intelligent people can see the same set of facts and come up with different opnions.

[Seraphim73]

@devrex said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

Death is the absolute most boring thing you can do. Imprisonment is fine in the short-term, if you're providing some sort of RP experience to go with it (perhaps a fight in the prison, etc).

Daredevil Season 2 does this very well with the Punisher. Frank gets put in prison, but he gets out again pretty quickly, and he gets to do "his thing" in prison.

Building on "Yes, but," or "no, but" (in addition to 'yes,and' and 'no, and') is helpful.

Yes. Yes. Yes. It's something I have problems with sometimes, but I'm always in favor of providing a "No, but," "Yes, but," or "Yes, and" response.

[Derp]

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

Anyhow, I see your point, but I disagree with it. Two intelligent people can see the same set of facts and come up with different opnions.

Sorry, it wasn't actually for you, per se, but to explain for the audience's sake. <.< >.> I know you get it. We've had reasonable discussions about it before. Hell, half the time I agree with you and split the baby anyway.

[Ganymede]

@derp

Well, I mean, I can’t eat a whole baby these days, I’m old, wtf.

[Juniper]

Having only vaguely skimmed this thread (sorry) here's my worthless 2 cents.

Good antagonism both requires a high-quality roleplayer and a high level of personal commitment to making it work. The more I play MUDs the more convinced I am that players are like water, they usually take the path of least resistance. If you want them to act in specific ways you need the mechanically incentivise that behavior and dam up shortcuts that you don't want them to use. If you can't design a system that incentivise cooperative antagonistic play, high-quality antagonists will go somewhere else.

I recall a game where players holding high positions of authority were thematically obligated to crush antags into a fine red paste ASAP. Anyone who went easy on an antag to promote story faced backlash and potential removal. So people stopped being bad. GMs now wonder why everyone sits around hugging each other and nobody wants to start conflict. But, I mean, what did you expect?

I'm not saying it's easy or simple, but facilitating antagonism is definitely the responsibility of the game implementor (unless the game has like 3 people in which case none of this applies).

[HorrorHound]

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@derp

Well, I mean, I can’t eat a whole baby these days, I’m old, wtf.

You don't eat them whole, Jesus Christ who raised you? Chew your food, dammit.

[Tinuviel]

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@derp

Well, I mean, I can’t eat a whole baby these days, I’m old, wtf.

You don't eat them whole, Jesus Christ who raised you? Chew your food, dammit.

A whole baby and a baby whole are different sentences. Who taught you to read?

[HorrorHound]

@Juniper

I, personally, loathe the Super Friend routine and often distance myself from it when I see it as I recognize my first instinct is to piss all over it and then set it on fire. Hooooweverrrr, using that example and your own, you inevitably come back to Staff being the arbiters between players and at each crossroads because, you know, drama.

[HorrorHound]

@tinuviel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@derp

Well, I mean, I can’t eat a whole baby these days, I’m old, wtf.

You don't eat them whole, Jesus Christ who raised you? Chew your food, dammit.

A whole baby and a baby whole are different sentences. Who taught you to read?

The American Education System.

[Tinuviel]

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@tinuviel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@derp

Well, I mean, I can’t eat a whole baby these days, I’m old, wtf.

You don't eat them whole, Jesus Christ who raised you? Chew your food, dammit.

A whole baby and a baby whole are different sentences. Who taught you to read?

The American Education System.

[Juniper]

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@Juniper

I, personally, loathe the Super Friend routine and often distance myself from it when I see it as I recognize my first instinct is to piss all over it and then set it on fire. Hooooweverrrr, using that example and your own, you inevitably come back to Staff being the arbiters between players and at each crossroads because, you know, drama.

Swinging back around this game a couple of years later, the main form of plot development seems to be constant charity drives and I just want to burn the whole thing to the ground.

[Derp]

@juniper said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

the main form of plot development seems to be constant charity drives

[HorrorHound]

@juniper said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

@Juniper

I, personally, loathe the Super Friend routine and often distance myself from it when I see it as I recognize my first instinct is to piss all over it and then set it on fire. Hooooweverrrr, using that example and your own, you inevitably come back to Staff being the arbiters between players and at each crossroads because, you know, drama.

Swinging back around this game a couple of years later, the main form of plot development seems to be constant charity drives and I just want to burn the whole thing to the ground.

I'll hand you the matches. I won't tell you what to do but, you know, here's some matches.

[il-volpe]

@horrorhound said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

I, personally, loathe the Super Friend routine

I, too, loathe the Super Friend Routine, but I define that as, "When people whinge that other people's cross-faction RP exists without any fine red paste."

Probably cross-faction relationships are common tropes in the source materials.

Also, let people play with other people.

[Tinuviel]

I used to really loathe the Super Friends thing. But then I realised that that isn't what I loathe, really. It's when Super Friends is the only thing going, and the internal 'sphere' plot is either non-existent or solely in support of the Super Friends.