There is a peculiar practice (peculiar to
me, anyway) going on in the role-playing
world in which contests are held to give
out an award to the best individual
player, instead of to the best-performing
team of players. Granted, it?s nice to congratulate
someone who has done a superb
job of role-playing, problem solving,
leading the group, or even just keeping
the atmosphere light and enjoyable. On
the other hand, this practice tends to
misplace the more important emphasis of
a role-playing game, and can lead to
more problems than one might expect.

It could be argued that nothing is
wrong with recognizing players for their
personal ability; one could draw a parallel
with the Olympics, if one wanted to
stretch it that far, and point out that most
awards there are for individual effort.
Unfortunately, role-playing games are
not structured by and large for individual
competition. While any one player may
have a character who is quite powerful,
nearly all role-playing games are
designed so that it?s difficult for just one
character to successfully resolve any one
scenario. It takes the combined skills and
efforts of all the group members to meet
and defeat the obstacles that the game
referee cares to put in the way of achieving
the adventure?s goal. Most roleplaying
games have character-generation
systems which split up the various skills
and abilities into "character classes? or
?prior service tables? (like the AD&D
and Traveller games, respectively) to
promote interdependence among group
members; no one character can have all
the powers needed to accomplish a mission.
If this were so, it would tend to
make group adventures unnecessary; why
split treasure with someone when you can
get to it by yourself? Instead, in the
AD&D? game system there are fighters,
magic-users, rangers, paladins, thieves,
and so forth, each with their own skills
and talents. In Traveller there are
Marines, Doctors, Scouts, Pirates, Merchants,
and other services. Even game systems
like Runequest and Call of Cthulhu,
which allow any one character to develop
any number of skills, are set up so that it
is impossible to be an expert at everything;
someone may be good at thieving,
another good at fighting, and someone
else good at spell-casting, but no one can
do everything. (If so, then someone is
either cheating or has played continually
over several years, working their skills
up.) Combat in particular calls for coordinated
effort; one person, even a Conantype,
cannot stand long against a horde of
orcs, baboons, Zhodani, or Fungi from
Yuggoth without some help from friends.

Of all the games in which I?ve participated,
as a player or as a referee, group
cooperation has been the one element
that most affected whether or not a group
was going to succeed on a mission. People
tend to have an exaggerated idea of
how important their individual characters
are in a game, and often lose sight of
this point. Some will do all they can to
become the "shining star" in the group,
making themselves obnoxious with their
insistence on not cooperating.

If this sort of individuality is too
strongly encouraged over group effort,
there is an excellent chance the adventure
will disintegrate into petty bickering and
heavy-handed struggles for the position
of King of the Heap. in the extreme, this
will produce assassinations and fighting
among group characters even in the middle
of a critical adventure. One scenario I
refereed, an expedition into a fire giant?s
lair, was aborted at the outset when one
group member had his character kill off
another character; this act could be
defended by the player?s claim that he
played his character within his alignment,
since he had an evil thief and the
victim was a paladin. But now the group
was in no shape to carry on the adventure,
the guy playing the paladin quit,
and the adventure was over for the day
before it had begun. Another group, more
tightly coordinated and more determined,
played the same adventure on a later day
and had the honor of smashing the lair.

Players generally want to cooperate
with each other, and people who don?t
play by the rules (the unwritten ones
about cooperating) can find themselves
facing down the most dangerous of all
opponents in any game: an enraged
group of player characters. It is truly
amazing just how effectively and completely
one character, regardless of power
or level can be greased by everyone else
(unless the DM decides to pull strings and
prevent this somehow). One of the most
personally satisfying incidents of this sort
I?ve heard of involved some players
(friends of mine) who were having trouble
dealing with one player?s character
who always seemed to try to dominate the
gaming sessions, break group rulings,
and so forth. Matters came to a head one
evening, and an epic battle ensued in
which many-dice fireballs flew and technological
weapons, long hidden on
group members from previous expeditions,
were pulled out and used. The battle
ended in the disintegration of the
offending character and a spontaneous
ten-minute celebration by the surviving
members. It is one thing to be an outlaw
from society; it is another, and more fatal,
thing to be an outlaw from a group.

The other extreme is possible, too. I
had a character introduced into one
group and then discovered that the other
players were in the habit of killing new
characters, so their characters could take
the newcomers? gold and magical items.
My character got lucky and escaped, with
the help of the character of a friend of
mine (who was also almost slain by the
other characters). But we never gamed
with that group again. Months later, one
of the cutthroat players saw me and asked
why I never came back. Some people have
a difficult time seeing the obvious.

How many times can you recall having
your character play second fiddle to
another character in a role-playing game?
How many people can you recall who
played as if this game was some kind of
"survival of the fittest" competition, in
which they intended to be Numero Uno?
What about adventures in which no one
wanted to do the same thing, and cooperation
was hard to get without a lot of
hurt feelings and comments like, "Okay,
my wizard will go with you to the Caverns
of Doom, but he isn't gonna help
anybody out of trouble. . . .?" Do you
remember those times as being particularly
entertaining?

Try the other viewpoint. Think of
those adventures in which everyone
seemed to be having a good time, not just
one person by himself. Was everyone
involved in the adventure in some way?
Did people have a chance to use their
skills, to share in the combat, and get a
share of the loot at the end? Did people
work together, or was it dog-eat-dog?
Sure, we all recall someone who showed
an aptitude for figuring out traps, directing
the group, giving needed advice, or
telling jokes that had everyone rolling on
the floor. But didn't other characters have
their moments in the sun, too?

The true mark of a good role-player, in
any game system, is the ability to work
well with others. It is all well and good to
have a +5 Holy Sword, and 18's in all of
one?s characteristics, but if one cannot get
along with other players and interact
effectively with them, one might have
trouble finding groups who will accept
him to game on a regular basis. At worst,
one might find that his character is being
eyed as another potential enemy to be
eliminated. Groups are made up of individuals,
but individuals must learn to act
as a group if they plan to get anywhere
on a role-playing adventure.
 

MAY 1983
 

OUT ON A LIMB

'Personal survival'

Dear Editor: 
After reading Roger Moore's article in issue
#73 ("All for all, not one for one"), I feel I
must disagree. In many fantasy games, the idea
is personal survival. In many instances, player
characters have tried to work in a group effort,
and have found that running into a trap to
save a fighter of low level actually wastes time
and valuable hit points required to fight monsters
or overcome traps later.

While I can see that Mr. Moore has a point
about no character being proficient in all
fields, this is rarely necessary in the campaign I
master. Often, when a character survives to
much higher levels, magic weapons and current
abilities negate the need for a group effort.
Even at low levels, the PC is often concerned
not with the group, but with individual
achievement.

Where Mr. Moore complained of an evil
thief killing the paladin at the outset of the
adventure and blaming it on alignment, his
feelings are justified. In my campaign this
would have been disruptive to play.

As for Mr. Moore's comments about PCs
attacking PCs that were new, outcasts, or troublesome,
I don't see his point. In my campaign,
it always provided a competitive spirit.
Often, PCs who no longer served the "head 
honcho's" purpose were simply eliminated. It
added intrigue, rivalry, and mystery to the
gaming sessions. And all the people behind the
characters still get along. After all, Roger
should keep in mind that it's just a game.

D. Klisiewin
Easthampton, Mass.
(Dragon #77)
 

Roger Moore's reply:
When I wrote the article, I was not trying to
preach to people about how they should conduct
their role-playing games. Everyone has
different tastes and likes in gaming. It has been
my experience, however, that groups that are
cohesive and help their members stand much
better chances of survival, and also are able to
work more closely and coherently together.
Such groups also seem to be more fun to game
with, from my viewpoint anyway, and while
some people may find it interesting to have
their characters compete in some war-to-thedeath
scenarios, many of those I've gamed with
have avoided doing this because of the hurt
feelings and problems it generates. Granted, of
course, it is only a game. The article expressed
my views on what in my experience has made
the game more fun, and I hope some people
found it helpful in making their games more
enjoyable, too. 

-- RM
(Dragon #77)