Competetive Gaming

[Carthrat]

Touching on some of the aspects of the whole 'Playing to Win' thing, I bring you the concept of combining role-playing with tactical strategy!

Or something like that.

Anyway, I'm here to ask: What're your thoughts on having a *character-based role-playing game* (important!) deliberately set up so the players are at odds with each other? I.e., you could have a group of rivals out to blast each other, dualists, rival drug smugglers, generals, whatever; the players directly control *one character* (important!), with which they set out to achieve their goals.

It's just that their goals are at odds with the other players.

I bring this up because I've had several ideas for games that revolve around this sort of conflict. The question is, how is it executed?

To take a 'basic' example, say you relegate the game to a single city, within which are two PCs, both of whom are 1) Enemies, 2) Want to get their hands on something within the city (somebodies hand in marriage, a magic whatever, the allegiance of some general, the death of the other, what-have-you).

Obviously, the players are going to want to keep secrets from each other, so you need to GM them seperately, and keep the information secret. If the players come into contact with each other, however, you need to have them both around to resolve whatever conflict.

Then there's the task of managing any interpersonal relationships they're developing, if your game features them (if it doesn't, it's not really a role-playing game, and more of a straight-out strategy game). This is probably the most important part, and also the hardest. It's relatively eay to keep a map handy and track *where* the players are, but who they're with? It can't be as easy as saying 'Bob rolled an extra success on his socialize score than Jim, so Kevin is willing to spill all his secrets.'

Then there's the problem of having players at odds with each other in general. You need to be *absolutely impartial*, and even if you are, there's a possibility that someone might get angry, at either you or the other player.

Hell, they do that in *cooperative* games.

Anyhow, what are your thoughts on running games like this? Would you run one? Would you prefer to have individuals or teams? What scale would you find most fun? A small unit, a city, or a world?

[Ranmilia]

I would run one, but I think people willing to play would be scarce, much less common than GMs.  I'd prefer to have 4-6 individuals, or possibly even a couple more, and let the players decide what goals they wanted to pursue, or if they wanted to form teams, though the setup would obviously be geared towards there being a few distinct factions within the setting.  I'd think a world would be the most fun, though obviously it would take a lot of work on the GM's part.

[Dracos]

I wouldn't think players would be scarce.  The Mansion, a game I tried to get running a while back, was such a thing.  The players competing to try and find out who the murderer was while also trying to get the inheirtance.

It is a real pity I never got the whole map built and it ended up fading away.

I'm of the belief that these types of campaigns are the types of things internet gaming is particularly built to handle.  It is a little hard to do this kind of stuff when everything ends up being public (even if it is only public by the fact they can see you passing notes).

On player to player interaction, it is difficult.

For fairness sake with battle, I'd grab a system.  It is one thing to arbitrate directly when you're running all the baddies.  It is another to arbitrate when it is player vs player combat.  Someone will inevitably get angry in a way they wouldn't had it all been determined by dice rolls.  Well, they might, but they'll be angry at the dice, and not at you.

Outside of battle?  I'd handle that kind of thing by encouraging descriptive prose.  Adding in a little.  "You manny, it is kind of hard to disagree with the fellow.  At least directly anyway.  He seems really convincing." might help the playing of it.  Even if it is competitive, it is also role playing.

I'd still be interested in running or playing one down the line when I have more free time.

Dracos

[Jason_Miao]

This is a little late. ^_^

What're your thoughts on having a *character-based role-playing game* (important!) deliberately set up so the players are at odds with each other? I.e., you could have a group of rivals out to blast each other, dualists, rival drug smugglers, generals, whatever; the players directly control *one character* (important!), with which they set out to achieve their goals.

It's just that their goals are at odds with the other players.

I bring this up because I've had several ideas for games that revolve around this sort of conflict. The question is, how is it executed?

Okay, first thing that always comes to mind of Player v. Player is Paranoia.  There are some differences: in character-based game, you presumably don't want to treat player lives as expendible, and you may not be aiming for irreverence as your game theme.  But some of the player management tricks that work for Paranoia might also work for you.  You may want to browse around the Ultraviolet Sections of some Paranoia books/websites.

One style that amused me was that the Computer(GM) let everyone make one declared action, and one secret action (as done in note).  So the player could say "I'm going to cover Mel-R-OSE.  Anything attacks him, I'll shoot it." while his note says "Hell no.  I'm running for cover."  But the player also has the option of passing a blank note.  Just think about how a devious player might use/abuse that option.

Then there's the task of managing any interpersonal relationships they're developing, if your game features them (if it doesn't, it's not really a role-playing game, and more of a straight-out strategy game). This is probably the most important part, and also the hardest. It's relatively eay to keep a map handy and track *where* the players are, but who they're with? It can't be as easy as saying 'Bob rolled an extra success on his socialize score than Jim, so Kevin is willing to spill all his secrets.'

You're right; when it's player against player, rolling is stupid.  So don't do it.  Instead, keep a score board of the NPCs and what they think of each player.  Instead of rolling, have the players act, convince, cajole, threaten, seduce...yeah, so it minimizes the importance of the "likability(charisma)" stat.  So what?  If you're playing a character-based game, they shouldn't be depending on it anyway.  Rather, the player should try to BE more theatrical, convincing, cajoling, threatening, seductive, etc.

Then there's the problem of having players at odds with each other in general. You need to be *absolutely impartial*, and even if you are, there's a possibility that someone might get angry, at either you or the other player.

Nah.  You need to be absolutely consistent.  And you need to let the players know what your measure of success is.  It doesn't have to be fair, as long as it's fun.

A counterargument is that that if you have some self-absorbed/touchy player, he will probably get mad.  Well, yes.  But he'd get mad anyway, wouldn't he?

I'll use Paranoia combat here as an example.  Paranoia uses the "dramatic" combat system.  The rules are to be dramatic in your actions, and if possible, to make the GM laugh.

GM: You're walking along an alley.  Suddenly, 3 mutants chanting Marxist slogans pop up behind windows lining the alley, and bring cone rifles to bear on you.  Gunn-R-BOY, what do you do?

GRB: Huh?  What's going on?

GM: Gunn-R observes the situation.  Ca-R-BON?

CRB: Um....

BM: Ca-R-BON stands around looking confused.  Hell-O-KTY?

HOK(who's played this game before): I hide behind Gunn-R-BOY, use his shoulder as rest mount, and shoot my lasers at the mutants while shouting "Surrender, Commie-Mutant-Traitors!  The Computer is my friend!"

GM: Got it.  Rare-R-STK?

RRS: I whip out my concussion grenade, pull the pin, wind back...and toss the pin.

GM: Haha.  Okay.

After the GM makes some rolls behind the screen, which he promptly ignores, he announces that the mutants were attracted by Hell-O-KTY's screaming and shot at him.  Luckly for him, Gunn-R-BOY blocked two shots and perished heroically, while Hell-O-KTY only lost a leg.  Rare-R-STK's pin hit a mutant on the head, and while it was laughing, the grenade went off as Rare-R-STK held it.  The shock instantly killed him, but also propelled his body into the mutants, killing all of them.

After the debriefing, Rare-R-STK is posthumously promoted two ranks, then reduced by one for damaging Computer property (himself), and commended.  Hell-O-KTY is commended for his work, but sorry, the Computer  is a bit strapped for cash right now, so he's going to have to make do without a leg until he can see a doctor.  The other two are demoted and ordered to report for reactor-shielding duty.

Fair and impartial?  Hell no.  Fun?  Some people think so. ^_^

Anyhow, what are your thoughts on running games like this?

In sum, it could be fun, but you have to be ready to improvise in a major way.  Your 'reaction roll' example is a case in point.  Players do weird things; two players trying to pit their creative energies against one another are going to get REALLY freaky.  So use the rolls when it's time, but ignore them when they're not useful.

Would you run one?

Yeah.  But it would be ALOT of prep work, which I don't really have time for.  But if I did...

I'd set one up where two (or more) deadly assassins must kill each other in a city that's being controlled by a junta.  They each have access to some pretty powerful weaponry.  But keep in mind that a junta is not going to look favourably at the news that people are creeping around with plastique and rocket launchers and will go bugfuck in trying to nail the player if he is flagrant about it.  

The players also have a network of contacts that can supply equipment and information.  However, some of those contacts are traitors for the other player, and some are traitors for the junta...traitors aren't stupid, either.  They know they're playing with fire, so they do NOT take stupid risks, babble everything they know about the other player after a titty-twist, etc.  In fact, they'll mostly keep low...and pass on information to his REAL employer.

Other organizations in the city also need to be fleshed out in a general way.  Factory owners, monopolists, officers in the Junta, gangsters, fences, police, the cocktail waitress that helps rich monopolists *relax* for a small fee, etc...

So, setup is a bitch: defining relevant stats and player abilities, making a TON of contacts including basic personality, regular collection/drop-off points, what kinds of things would induce the contact to switch sides, what kinds of things he would be willing to do when he switches sides, etc.  You'll also need to draw up a graph of people to map out the contact networks.

On the other hand, I also think it's a good mix of roleplaying and deviousness.  Contacts beget contacts beget contacts...all of whom must be persuaded.  Some combat is involved, but it's combat of the most subtle of sorts.  Lots of creeping and maneuvering.

The scenario is malleable, too.  If you want to introduce some teamwork, make them teams of assassins (and, if you're evil, one person on each team is really working for the other team.  If you're REALLY evil, EVERY person on each team is working for the other team).  If you're into Monty Haul games, discard the junta (which is there to prevent players from acting openly).  You could also put extra players in charge of different factions.  Their goal will be to advance their own aims.