[SE] Player Characters *versus* and *as* Authority Figures

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Been thinking about the relationships between PCs and influence/authority lately, wondering about the frequency and viability of interactions between the two. First of all, IME the interaction types can be loosely grouped into the following types*:

• PCs of relatively unremarkable personal competence and low social influence. Think VtM neonates. PCs either respect influential figures, or outright tremble before them. PCs who do neither tend to get into trouble real fast. Example characters: a conscript, a lowly clerk.
  
• PCs of relatively remarkable personal competence, and low social influence. Think typical action heroes, maybe also Exalted. PCs can afford to disrespect influential figures, because even if they're outranked, they can expect some chance at winning a personal confrontation with an authority figure either through clever social manoeuvring, or brute force, or something else. Whether they do is another matter. Example characters: DF-style murderer-hobos with no Rank and no influence; cyberpunky heroes.
  
• PCs of relatively remarkable personal competence, and high social influence. Think VtM Elders, or other AuthorityEqualsAsskicking setup. PCs have the rank and connections, but often tend to still do the heavy lifting personally - whether by brute force, or through social influence. Example characters: Gilgamesh, a king who regularly goes to deal with the threats personally; a very non-combat-capable vampire elder with lots of secret rank and contacts, but who also has charisma 5+, Leadership-18, Administration-25 and Diplomacy-30 to do the social and administrative heavy lifting.
  
• PCs of relatively unremarkable personal competence, and high social influence. Think . . . . don't have an easy way to compare. It's the sort of PC whose defining characteristics would be connections, rank and social standing, not high levels of personal traits. Such a character acts not through brawn, brains and charm, but rather through pulling the right patiently collected strings, leverageing social standing or the like. Example characters: the stereotypical New Russian who took the right choice at the right time, and keeps getting richer through means he barely understands; Jim Hacker (Yes, Prime Minister); Bertie Wooster (Jeeves and Wooster); THS' oldest eloi.

Unlike many other systems, GURPS typically allows a player to make his/her own decision how to split points between attributes/skills and social advantages, so it seems somewhat better suited to generating characters who sacrifice personal competence to get more social standing, clout and influence.

And yet the last type of PC is something I don't remember ever seeing in a campaign, but I'm sure somebody, somewhere tried or saw it. Obviously not all types are viable in all campaigns, but I still wonder: Are they too boring to play? Are they just typically banned by GMs due to inappropriateness in most campaigns? Or are they actually too challenging even for the more experienced roleplayers?

Thanks in advance!

* == Of course there are more ways to categorize, but I'm establishing two axes for the purpose of the examined topic.

[CoyoteGestalt]

A number of years ago, I briefly played a Bertie-esque character in a 1920s Call of Cthulhu game (the campaign ended after only a few sessions for outside reasons related to the academic calendar). He was actually quite a lot of fun to play, though I don't know how he would have worked out over the long term.

He wasn't entirely inept, as he was fairly physically fit and always ready to whap evildoers over the head with a tennis racket or cricket bat (this this is not actually a particularly useful trait in CoC), but had no great skill at much of anything. Otherwise, his primary value to the group was his resources and social connections, and his ability to get them entree into areas where more conventional investigators would cause a raised eyebrow unescorted. He was accompanied by his Gentleman's Gentleman, another PC and significantly more conventionally competent, and his loyal basset hound whom he always claimed was a highly trained hunting dog, just not for whatever they happened to be hunting at the time.

Despite my silly description, he wasn't really a comic relief character; in CoC, where the foes often are ultimately overwhelming even to the most competent, his weaknesses in a lot of conventional adventuring areas wasn't a major problem, and he brought useful, if unusual, abilities to the game. Often his biggest value, both within the adventure and on a metagame level, was providing the other PCs opportunities to shine, with him in a supporting role.

Not my usual character type, but I quite enjoyed him, and he did manage to contribute to the game for as long as it lasted.

He really only worked out well, though, because of the kind of campaign it was, centered on investigation and social interaction at least as much as more classical adventuring, and it was taking place within his originating milieu or in contact with it (I think the most remote we got was on the Orient Express). In other sorts of games (dungeon crawl, action-adventure, etc.), or even just taken out of the environment where his social traits were relevant, he'd have been problematic.

That's actually one of the biggest barriers to this kind of character in a lot of games, I think: unlike a more physically or mentally-focused character, their traits are almost entirely dependent on the setting; if the campaign simply travels too far, they're rendered useless. A wealthy and connected upper-class English dandy simply becomes little more than comic relief on a two-month camping and spelunking trip in Peru, unless he proves to have some other hidden talent.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

PCs of relatively unremarkable personal competence, and high social influence. Think . . . . don't have an easy way to compare.

You find a lot of this among characters (and real people) who inherited a position of power: third or fourth generation kings in a dynasty, idle rich who got ownership of a mighty corporation from the parent who built it but grew up spoiled brats, etc.

There are plenty of historical and fictional archetypes, but it doesn't surprise me they're not popular in play. They can express their desires and thereby set events into motion ("I'm bored with these larks' tongues; you there in the livery, fetch me a mango from far-off Faroffia"), but they don't and are ill-equipped to actually do anything in isolation, and for most players, that's not very interesting.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by CoyoteGestalt

That's actually one of the biggest barriers to this kind of character in a lot of games, I think: unlike a more physically or mentally-focused character, their traits are almost entirely dependent on the setting; if the campaign simply travels too far, they're rendered useless. A wealthy and connected upper-class English dandy simply becomes little more than comic relief on a two-month camping and spelunking trip in Peru, unless he proves to have some other hidden talent.

Money tends to be portable. Unless you've gone so far outside civilization that cash doesn't buy you anything, the wealthy part is still going to give returns. But class and connections do lose some of their bite.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

You find a lot of this among characters (and real people) who inherited a position of power:... they don't and are ill-equipped to actually do anything in isolation, and for most players, that's not very interesting.

This category reminds me of the personas people would adopt in old play-by-mail wargames, where you'd often see people getting creative with descriptions about "them" as they ruled a country in Diplomacy or other games where a player ran an entire country. You might get stories or news reports about the game events, or even notes that were completely irrelevant.

Personal competence wasn't an issue -- the game mechanics were all about the economics and military units, and often didn't even have stats for the rulers as in-game entities -- but the player could certainly command great events to happen in the scope of the game. The power to control the destinies of nations might fulfill the power-fantasy motivation for gaming. But RPGs tended to make that power a lot more individual and personal.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

PCs can afford to disrespect influential figures, because even if they're outranked, they can expect some chance at winning a personal confrontation with an authority figure either through clever social manoeuvring, or brute force, or something else. Whether they do is another matter. Example characters: DF-style murderer-hobos with no Rank and no influence; cyberpunky heroes.

This brings in something that seems to be more common amongst role-players in general than in my experience. Characters who regard talking back to authority figures as fun, and assaulting them as a plausible course of action.

This isn't something I run into very much, even amongst D&D players. I know a few people who regard that as fun - but I tend to avoid them, because I don't get much entertainment or sense of accomplishment from it. I've GM'ed them a few times, but found myself unable to care much about characters that were determinedly rude and gratuitously violent while not being funny.

In the styles of gaming I'm used to, authority figures are either paying for the job, people whose information or cooperation we need, or opponents. The later may involve violence, if it looks necessary, but there's no other need for rudeness.

[combatmedic]

A PC was recently kicked out of the party in my online D&D game. His offense? Insulting, challenging, and flagrantly disrespecting a ruling noble-- who happened to be another PC.
The rude PC was politely informed by the noble PC as to which style of address was proper in the situation. He blew his top and basically threw a hissy fit, eventually going so far as to try and get the duke to agree to a fistfight.


Yes, I cautioned the player, asked questions, gave him a chance to edit.

No dice.



The other PCs' reactions ranged from horror at the rudeness of the offending PC's crude language and threatening behavior, to a sword-in-hand readiness to kill him if he seemed to pose a physical threat to the duke, to wonderment at the sheer stupidity of his conduct.
The duke PC was merciful and simply banished the dwarf from his company, under guard.

Because the player of the rude dwarf refused and ruled out all in-game opportunities to make amends, his PC shifted to NPC status by an agreement between the two of us.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by johndallman

This brings in something that seems to be more common amongst role-players in general than in my experience. Characters who regard talking back to authority figures as fun, and assaulting them as a plausible course of action.

This isn't something I run into very much, even amongst D&D players. I know a few people who regard that as fun - but I tend to avoid them, because I don't get much entertainment or sense of accomplishment from it. I've GM'ed them a few times, but found myself unable to care much about characters that were determinedly rude and gratuitously violent while not being funny.

In the styles of gaming I'm used to, authority figures are either paying for the job, people whose information or cooperation we need, or opponents. The later may involve violence, if it looks necessary, but there's no other need for rudeness.

It's certainly common to see or hear about rude PCs, but this is not the only thing I meant.

If a PC barges into a noble court but manages to get away with it through some combination of Social Chameleon, Reaction Modifiers, and a Diplomatic Disarming Smile, that still counts as sidestepping issues of social standing through use of personal (internal, non-standing-related) traits.

[quarkstomper]

Another example from fiction: In Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped, Alan Breck, David Balfour's companion through much of the book, is an ideal adventuring character: brave, loyal and skilled with a sword. But when they get to the city of Edinburgh, Alan becomes more of a liablilty than an aid. David is able to gain the help of a lawyer named Rankellior. David comments in his narration that in the wilds of the highlands, Rankellior would have been a ludicrous figure; but here in the city where David has to navigate legal matters in order to regain his inheritance, Alan's sword can do no good -- and his outlaw status makes him a liablilty -- while the pedantic lawyer with the bookish sense of humor saves the day.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

A PC was recently kicked out of the party in my online D&D game. His offense? Insulting, challenging, and flagrantly disrespecting a ruling noble . . .

In any game with a fair connection to realism, such behavior would have very severe penalties. Note that this was true well into the 20th century.

I remember the film "Far and Away" -- I wasn't a great fan of the film but it was fun when I only had to pay a dollar for the privilege of viewing. In it a bog-trotting Irish yokel actually challenges an Anglo-Irish upper-class person to a duel. In the film, the duel was fought.

In reality, such an upperclass person would simply whistle for a crew of lackeys to take the appropriate action. As in the late 19th century actually killing the mick would have been frowned upon, the crew would simply have broken most of the bones in the offending Irishman's body and ensured that he never again would have walked without a limp and without pain.

In earlier ages there would have been less restraint. IIRC in another post on this site someone mentioned that Edward I of England (the famous "Longshanks") was riding one day and some yokel failed to leave him the right of way fast enough. The noble King had the yokel's eyes gouged out to teach him proper behavior. Apparently, as the royal left the yokel alive, various poets lauded the king for his magnificent mercy and restraint.

I've also heard references to various military PCs disobeying orders. Results would depend on the military system. In one historical account I read, a German unit had captured a number of Americans in 1944. The German commander, a major, had ordered that the Americas were to receive no food. One German private secretly slipped the PoWs two pieces of bread. Another German soldier spotted him and reported him to the Major.

The German private was immediately propped up against a tree and shot to death. The other German soldiers apparently saw nothing unusual in Herr Major's action. I also read (IIRC in the book Jackboot) that it was a court-martial offense for any German officer to FAIL to use his sidearm to enforce discipline; if he FAILED to shoot any soldier who's actions were detrimental to military order and discipline the officer himself could lose his rank and face imprisonment or consignment to a penal battalion.

So, if you're running a campaign with some historical basis, recall that even the idea of equality under the law, and due process thereof, is a fairly late invention and is not even now completely universal.