How dark is too dark? RPG Campaigns and player comfort zones contextualized against contemporary society

When I build worlds for RPGs, I draw on all of my knowledge. D&D and most RPGs are filled with evil, or at least antagonists that are blind to the evil they do. As a result of my wide knowledge, my worlds get dark fast. The real world can be a disgusting, vile place. I personally place a lot of importance of logical, fully-realized worlds that encompass a wide range of ideas, but I have learned to take care with that when playing with others.

Why? Ultimately, D&D is game for relaxing with friends. Some players come to escape from the complexities and evils of the world for straight forward moral questions. Others enjoy complex and creative machinations, but have certain subjects that will immediately make a game uncomfortable, unfun, or even downright disturbing. And you have some that can handle those subjects that make them uncomfortable, as long as it is generalized without traumatic detail.

A while back when I was experiencing issues with getting a group of players to work together (it never worked out) in Pathfinder, I made a survey designed to identify what players liked/disliked in RPGs and also what they wanted from the campaign. At the end, there was a section called, "Topics/themes that are offensive or make you feel uncomfortable", and I included the following items:

Cannibalism

PC-NPC romantic dialogue

Suicide

Gaslighting

Certain monsters

Gory depictions

Sexual assault

Bad things happening to children

Abuse

Blasphemy

Prosititution

Prejudice and bigotry

Interspecies sexuality

Bugs/Vermin

Violent murder

Now, Rabbit, aren't these often themes in D&D? Yes, many of them are, and a lot of these get a pass from most people. In the unscientific small sample that I tested (6 people - 5 men, 1 woman), 2/3's had an included at least one item. We can't draw inferences about the rest of the RPG playing population from this, but I hypothesize that there are many others out there that also might not want to play in a game with one of those elements being prominent.

Pretty much every female RPG player I met does not want to hear gruesome rape details during a game (I personally can live without it, but depending on the game, I might still play despite my comfort zone if the topic was handled seriously by the DM and group). I have had people cite not being comfortable with the topics of gaslighting, suicide, necrophilia, blasphemy, and one for "bad things happening to children". I included the last one because I previously had hobgoblin soldiers kidnap and brainwash children into becoming fanatical child soldiers for Tiamat, which fought against the PCs who were led by a Paladin of Bahamut storming an occupied palace. They nearly TPKed because the Paladin was healing the brainwashed children that were dying from party defending themselves. I told you I write dark.

What is the best rule for avoiding problems? Know your audience. You don't need a fancy survey, but kudos if you make one. Talking to your players and knowing what they expect, hope for, and their dealbreakers will go a long way for everyone enjoying a game.

What if you think, "If they don't like it, it's their problem. It's just a story"? I suppose you have the right, but usually forward advice is not just a norm, but a good idea for DMs, If you are playing a campaign where magic is always wild and unstable, shouldn't you tell the players ahead of time before they make a spellcaster? If you are playing a game with gunpowder or different technology, don't you think the players will make better character creation choices with the technological context  rather than without? If you are going to be ok with PvP in your campaign, wouldn't be a good idea to let all players know that before the first indignant response to betrayal? As a player, I generally like to know what type of campaign is coming first. Without telling players important details to expect that often a character in game would know, a player can (reasonably) become frustrated, leading to unnecessary tension, conflict or even departure of players. When these frustrations arise, it generally makes the game less fun for all involved.

Whether you like asking your players how they feel about topics, it will matter in the end because you'll at least be aware of how you might alienate a player. Being informed about player preference also knows where you can get dark if you want, because "the night is long and full of terrors."

Fun and consequential Game Design - FF6's Peace talks with Emperor Gestahl

Vintage Final Fantasy 3(6) strategy guide

Final Fantasy 6 (called Final Fantasy 3 when I bought it) is an iconic RPG classic from the Super Nintendo. I am calling particular attention to the Peace Talk scene in the first half of the game. It stands out as one of the most interestingly consequential parts of the first half. At the same time, it disappointingly shows promise that it could have been developed more. and has elements worth considering for GM's and game designers who want to make player agency count in a quantitative fashion.

The event in Final Fantasy 6 surrounds peace talks with Emperor Gestahl, the leader of the enemy faction. You are invited to dinner to discuss terms, and beforehand you are asked to speak with soldiers in a timed segment. In fact, you need to speak with as many as possible, as each is worth 1 point, and each one may be or less worth it (some are battles that eat up time). I'll come back to this, but we can call this the "Pre-Score" for now.

After the player has accumulated points, they have a discussion with the Emperor. The player has multiple options to discuss, which are also worth points. In this discussion sub-game, the points represent how much the Emperor agrees with the player. The chart at the right scanned from the original strategy guide for Final Fantasy 3/6 shows how much each answer is worth. These points I'll call the "Diplomacy Score".

After the discussion with Gestahl, the player will be informed of the results. The results are determined by finding the total score by adding the "Pre-Score" and "Diplomacy Score" together.The end result is an intriguing simultaneous wealth and dearth of player agency.

Focusing on the dearth first, the actual answers you pick do not matter in content. For instance, in regards to Kefka's Fate, the player is asked what should be done: A) Jail Kefka, B) Forgive Kefka, or C) Execute Kefka. The 'correct' answer is Jail Kefka in that it is worth 5 points. The answer presumably is the Emperor's shared opinion, but your answer has no impact on Kefka's fate. In the best light, the point of the Peace talks is get Gestahl to like you, but the answers you give do not at all correspond to the rewards received at the end (Kefka goes to Jail irregardless until his escape).

That complaint aside, the outcomes of the discussions are highly consquential. One or more allied towns will no longer have soldiers blocking access to shops and treasure in South Figaro and Doma Castle, respectively. If you do very well, the player can open chests at the Weapon chamber at the Imperial Base. The best results involve being additionally gifted a item that lets a party member heal with overland walking (Tintinabar) and another item that reduces random encounters (Charm Bangle). The ability to get foreign troops out of allied cities is more associated with games like Civilization than most RPGs.

Summary

The basic kernel of this designed encounter has X elements. The setup, which is the "Pre-Score". There is the actual encounter for which the players act, and their actions will generate the "Diplomacy Score"; the options of the Diplomacy score may should be increased or limited based on the actions of the "Pre-Score". There are the stakes of the encounter, what is to be gained or lost; these include consequences. There are the motivations and beliefs of both sides; these motivations need to be matched with the stakes, and whether or not the consequences of the stakes are known to one or both parties. These are are all taken together for the "Final Score", which takes the "Pre-Score", the "Diplomacy Score", and (in D&D/Pathfinder) the mechanic skill check which determines a character's ability to negotiate. The "Final Score" is a rough rubric for defining gradients of player success and outcomes. These should be used as a guide, because the players will naturally think of additional consequences, or bargaining chips.

Discussion

Be able to change the world based on diplomatic player agency is a highly exciting game element to me. I have previously incorporated a diplomatic points systems like these in Pathfinder, using the aforementioned "Pre-Score" and "Diplomacy Score" framework to simulate the initial circumstances of the diplomatic encounter. I had an Ancient Green Dragon who was the master of an ancient forest, and the party was traveling to meet the dragon in the hopes of creating an alliance against invaders. I began with the Dragon's motivations and beliefs.

Ancient Dragon - Motivations

Accumulate Power, Prestige, Wealth
Preserve Forest,
Protect Family and Forest creatures/serfs

Ancient Dragon - Beliefs

Draconic Superiority
Very high attention to etiquette
Sees Greed in counterparties as a virtue, not vice
Pragmatic - not immediately swayed by evil dragon deities
Paranoid but prepared for attempts to undermine and/or assassinate

From there, I created encounters along the way that might sway the dragon's opinion of the party when the time came for the diplomacy. These encounters functionally form the "Pre-Score", which I used as a conditional modifiers to the 1d20 Diplomacy Check that would occur at the end.

"Pre-Score" examples.

Party resurrects slain dragon daughter of ancient dragon +8
Party aids forest servants +2
Party attacks forest servants -2
Party kills forest servants -4
Party robs hoard of slain dragon daughter +2
Party spares hoard of slain dragon daughter -2
Party kills red dragon invader +2

When the party meets the dragon, they negotiated for a war alliance of the ancient dragon and his domain with a Bahamut-worshipping theocracy against an Tiamat-worshipping goblinoid Empire. This was accomplished in-game with a discussion with the Dragon with proposals made on both sides, followed by a diplomacy check made by one player (the paladin of Bahamut). This diplomacy check was rolled using the diplomacy skill, and modified using normal modifiers, as well specifically scripted modifiers esoteric to this situation alone (these esoteric bonuses are where the "Diplomacy Score" comes back).

"Diplomacy Score" examples
Party member wearing dragonscale to negotiation -5 ("Are you wearing my daughter?)
Party flatters the ancient green dragon /humbles themselves before the ancient green dragon +2
Party bargains for a better deal +2
Party accepts first offer from ancient green dragon -2
Party negotiates for increased post-war autonomy for dragon +2
Party is rude -4 (excluding threats or bringing weapons)

Party is armed when visiting -4 (cumulative with being rude and threats)
Threaten to kill ancient green dragon -4 (cumulative with being rude and weapons)
Party offers a gift, low value (100-999 gp) +1
Party offers a gift, mid value (1,000 gp 9,999 gp) +3
Party offers a gift, high value (10,000 gp+) +5
Party demonstrates knowledge of Nature, or region +1

These modifiers were used in conjunction with normal modifiers for Diplomacy. The paladin negotiating had ~+20 to their diplomacy already. I left the Total Score somewhat simple, as I expected more open-ended answers as appropriate to a table-top RPG. For the "Final Score", it went something like the below.

"Final Score" Diplomacy Check & Stakes
DC 40 Accepts military offer without  reservation. party can choose a gift.
DC 35 Accepts military offer under condition of marriage alliance (if slain dragon daughter alive); party can choose a gift.
DC 35 Accepts military offer under condition of expanded territory in the Theocracy (if slain dragon daughter not alive)
DC 30 Declined offer but willing to allow freedom of movement for troops.
DC 25 Declined offer but will to continue to shelter refugees and allow some trade caravans
DC 20 Declined offer but ancient green dragon remains friendly
DC 15 Declined offer and party asked to leave
Anything less than 15 will result in the party being attacked, eaten, or enslaved by the dragon.
 
In-game results

The party resurrected the daughter dragon but also killed hostile servants to the ancient green dragon. The paladin's existing reputation as honest and trustworthy added positively, and the ancient green dragon's ambivalence about evil dragon gods allowed him to overlook the otherwise contentious match. The Bahamut worshipping paladin succeeded in getting the alliance, but was nervous about marrying a chromatic green dragon for a marriage alliance.  He also choose between two items: a rock and an anvil, and was given no help in determining the objects (The dragon said, "You should know - it's so clear of a choice, and both are good", i.e. dragons can be really unhelpful smart-asses). One was a powerful anvil for making items, the other was a philosopher's stone. The Paladin chose the anvil, and had immediate buyer's regret when he found out the truth.

The end result was player satisfaction, and importantly, the things being discussed actually had impact. The character did marry the dragon, the alliance did form, and conflict was reduced between the allied Bahamut theocracy and the ancient green dragon's forest.

World-building: Cultural Dimensions #1 - Individualism vs. Collectivism

Introduction

 

This is an initial post of a series of posts I would like to do on culture dimension theory, and how it can be applied to world-building. I first came across cultural dimension theory when I was taking a Chinese business culture course in my undergraduate years of university. We read a pair of books called Chinese Business Etiquette, by Scott D. Seligman, and another called Chinese Business Negotiating Style, by Tony Fang (both are great, well-researched books for insight Chinese cultural norms. 

   In Fang’s work, he cites the work of Geert Hofstede, a “… social psychologist, former IBM employee and Professor Emeritius…, well known for his pioneering research on cross-cultural groups and organizations.” Geert Hofstede invented what is called cultural dimension theory, which examines cultural practices in slices based on the values of a culture and how they compare. His study inspired imitators including Fons Trompenaars, whose work is also highly illuminating. Measuring a culture’s values in a scientific way is a tricky task that can be exposed to biases in sample collection and measurement methodology. As a result, in the real world, there is a degree of estimation involved that can wrongly describe a culture, and requires significant care empirically and ethically in getting the most accurate results.

   In world-building, the creator can define cultures and individuals as exactly as needed. The creator of a world, culture, or character potentially has perfect information on the subject, and can decide how accurate a description of the subject is. Since the subjects are generally fictional, the process of describing the culture lacks the same ethical standards as accurately describing a real ethnic group. Defining the fictional people of Adzia as extremely individualistic does not have the same consequences with real people that defining the people of a real culture (like ethnic Han of China or Sunni Muslims) as extremely individualistic would have with real people. One is a creative decision that can be 100% accurate if the author desires, and the other is an opinion that may or may not have quality empirical statistics to back it up. The reason I bring this up is a caution - cultural archetyping is a tool that can illuminate and offend when used without thought, so take care when describing or altering historical and contemporary real-world cultures. 

   I present the first in my series, based on Geert Hofstede’s and Fons Trompenaars’ work, individualism vs. collectivism (or individualism vs. communitarianism in Trompenaars’ model).

Individualism vs. Collectivism

   A relatively new concept, individualism champions an individual’s choice and freedom at the expense of the group’s need. Collectivism, on the other hand, emphasizes group cohesion, loyalty, and helping others for greater collective benefit. Individualist cultures are more insistent on civil rights and civil liberties of individuals, as well as privacy, self-actualization, and limited social obligation and/or responsibility. In contrast, collectivist cultures place emphasis on the needs of the group as a whole, and seek harmony and consensus in society. Individual members of a collectivist society are protected by the group and are also expected to follow the group. Collectivist societies may view individualists as selfish, and individualist societies may view collectivists as controlling.

   Individualism vs. collectivism as a dimension can be compared by the extent of obligations to others. Extremely individualistic cultures disregard any obligation to needs of others before obligation to needs of oneself. An extreme individualist may yet choose to regard and see to the needs of others, but that choice is based on a personal choice to put others first. Another extreme individualist may be selfishly and completely focused on themselves. A more moderate individualist chooses to help others when it is convenient to do so, and may only put their personal obligations on hold when the consequences for not helping others are dire.

   A moderate collectivist sees the world as an opportunity for their group(s). Their group helped them to get to where they are, and they help their group in return. They help the group not simply because helping them in term leads to individual benefit, but because they identify as part of the group – a collectivist’s well-being and self-worth of the individual is a function of the group’s well-being and is dependent on the group’s outcome. An extreme collectivistic culture takes this loyalty and obligation by providing catastrophic disincentives to avoiding group obligations and/or fortunate incentives to those who hew closely to cultural collectivist ideals. Examples of catastrophic disincentives include fines, social exclusion, exile, criminal charges, or a loss of class status or citizenship. Fortunate incentives may include earning special privileges, rewards, and social commendation or honors.

   Individualism vs. collectivism’s degree of scope can be compared by the extent of the group(s). A person’s group can be envisioned as concentric circles: the individual is in the center, with a group of close family immediately containing the individual. That circle is surrounded by another circle that includes extended obligations, such as more distant family or work-related colleagues. Outside that circle includes more distant obligations, which could be a circle of an entire local, tribal, ethnic, or nation group that includes the individual.  Circles of some groups may cut across unevenly to include some but not others: a member of a minority religious sect may find their circle to include some but not all people in the family, some fellow co-workers, people outside your town and maybe including people in the town over. Depending on the values of the culture, obligation to other groups may be considered first before family. Tribal, patriotic, nationalist, or feudal cultures may value loyalty and service to the tribe/kingdom/nation before immediate family. Pious or idealistic cultures may place obligation to religious faiths or ideologies before family. Materialistic or hard-working cultures may place obligation to your occupation and monetary wealth before that of family. 

   For individualistic cultures, the circles that identify groups of people of importance are increasingly self-defined the more individualistic they are. A somewhat individualistic person may place their closest friends inside or closer than their family circle, but otherwise follow an ordinary model of social obligation. A highly individualistic person may combine social groups into one, have asymmetrically defined obligations to people across groups, and feel obligations to which none of their peers belong to. Asymmetric obligations in individualistic people results in wearing unusual clothes, being enamored of thinkers outside the mainstream, conforming to chosen groups and people that are outside those interacted with in daily life, violating common traditions and customs, and being less concerned with consequences of being different (sometimes their self-worth increases as they contrast more with others).

   Each culture lies on a continuum in terms of the degree to which individualism or collectivism is important as a social value. Cultures on this continuum dimension will share more common values as compared to other cultures that are either more or less individualistic or collectivistic. Within each culture, the adherents and members of that culture also lie on a continuum. One person may be very collectivist for an individualist culture, while another may be less collectivist than that person but be more but belong to a more collectivist culture, and vice versa. The more culturally homogenous the culture in question is, the more likely the continuum of personal attitudes to individualism vs. collectivism will be clustered. People are people, and there are always outliers to cultural attitudes at either end.

Examples

So what does this mean in practice? Take a few examples of hypothetical situations:

a) You are running late for an important meeting with a client. The client and the meeting have consequence to your business and reputation. However, a friend that you like (but are not close to) is having trouble with the wheel of their vehicle. The wheel needs repair so they can get to work, and they are late because of the broken wheel. Your friend needs your help to fix the wheel and you are confident you can successfully fix the wheel in an ideal situation. However, if you help, you are fairly sure you will not be able to meet your client at the appointed time. What do you do?

o Stop everything to help your friend, and deal with the consequences of the meeting later.
o Take as much as time as you think you use to help while still not being late for the meeting.
o Offer to come back after informing your client you will be late due to assisting you.
o Offer to come back after your client’s meeting is over to assist.
o Find someone to assist to help your friend, and all of you work to fix the vehicle.
o Find someone to assist to help your friend, and offer to do a favor for the person assisting your friend while you take care of your meeting.
o Politely decline to help as you don’t want to be late yourself, and deal with the consequences of not helping your friend later.

b) You are planning a party, such as a celebration or a wedding. You have 10 close members of your family, 20 members of extended family, 20 members of your work, 10 close friends, 20 friends, 20 people in a shared social group. 10 people across these groups, you owe a favor for things they have done for you. You can only afford to invite 50 people. Who do you invite?

o I invite people that I personally value the most, first.
o I invite members of my family first, friends second.
o I invite people I am closest to in each group.
o I invite those I owe a favor over those I am close to.
o I invite more than I can afford, taking additional financial loss for the benefit of others.
o I ask for assistance from my closest members to help support a larger party to increase the invitation list.

c) You have a strong personal interest in something considered unusual for your group. This can be a love for an ideology, a desire to switch religions, a lifestyle, or simply a taste in unusual clothes. When you express yourself in this fashion, you experience pushback because it is different. How do you react?

o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, and I seek to actively manage or change my attitude to the group.
o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, but reflects me, and I seek to minimize expression or keep my attitude to myself.
o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, but I seek to express myself how I see fit despite different views.
o I recognize that this does not reflect our group, but I seek to convince the group to change their opinion.
o I recognize that this does not reflect one of my groups, but it reflects one or more other groups I identify with.
o I recognize that this reflects me, and I seek to express myself in a manner true to myself.
o I recognize that this reflects me, and I seek to convince others to change their opinion.
o I recognize that this reflects me, and actively seek to challenge opposition to my attitudes from my group and outside my group. 

Individualism vs. Collectivism Random Table

Do you want to have a table to randomly determine an attitude for an person, creature, town or culture? Below is an adapted version of the table I created for myself to aid designing my current world.

 

d100	Individualism vs. Collectivism
01-10	Extreme Individualism
11-20	Very High Individualism
21-30	Significant Individualism
31-40	Moderate Individualism
41-50	Minor Individualism
51-60	Minor Collectivism
61-70	Moderate Collectivism
71-80	Significant Collectivism
81-90	Very High Collectivism
91-00	Extreme Collectivism

Afterword

I am going to continue this series. Cultural dimensions I am looking to go into detail in the near future include (but are not limited to): Restraint vs. Indulgence, Foreignness, Universalism vs. Particularism, and Power Distance.