PBEM v92 n05 (15Nov92)

======================================================================
Role-Playing in PBMs                                     Luis Sequeira
======================================================================

This won't be an article about role-playing PBMs - but role-playing
*in* PBMs, which is a quite different thing. In normal RPGs, where all
players sit at the same table, and most players already know each
other fairly well, there are some aspects of true role-playing which
are often ignored, or simply overlooked. That is, most players will
pick a character of their liking and which --- very often, at least
--- reflects their own personality. A player who is shy and
introverted won't ever play an extroverted merchant or bard. He may be
not very brave in the real world and choose a bold assassin, but he'll
stay behind the action and make a move only when he's really needed.
The important thing here is to watch how each player's reactions are
dictated not only by the character he chooses, but mainly by the other
players in the game, his friends, and who expect from him his own
reactions. Unless one is a professional actor, it is inevitable that
one feels somewhat constrained by one's own personality while ---
presumably --- playing the personality of a game character.

This, of course, isn't an argument *against* role-playing games at
all! To the contrary; as each player picks a character of his own
liking, and one he is quite comfortable with, instead of a
pre-selected one, the game is certainly more fun than a game where all
players are "forced" to take characters they don't like, thus playing
less enthusiastically, making the game dull and boring. As it is, RPGs
are thus heavily influenced by the human factors involved in a meeting
of good friends, knowing well each other. A fighter played by John
will always look like another fighter played by John, even if the type
of the game changes radically (and John's fighter is instead a marine
soldier --- but its witty remarks will always be John's).

But on the scale of PBMs, especially PBMs played by dozens of players
from around the world, and unable to contact each other except through
the game (assuming that most players are not at phone distance with
each other, etc.), the nature of each player's decisions can vary much
from the player's own personality.

That is, if John does not make his witty remarks in a PBM, how will
one know who is John and who isn't? Thus, PBMs are the realm of
anonymity. If someone does not reveal his real name, and is hidden
behind the name of his character in a PBM (and not only on a RPG PBM,
but on all types of PBMs), nobody knows what his real personality is.
He has more freedom of choice than in RPGs --- because he is not
constrained by having other players watch him and expect certain
choices from him. As it is, in a PBM, players are judged for what they
do in the game and by their messages instead of being prejudiced by
his own personality. Someone who you hate in the real world may become
your best ally, just because both ignore each others' personalities
and act solely upon what they read in the reports about the other one.
Mark can be a real pain in the ass in the real world, but if he acts
wisely in the game and offers much in diplomatic terms, he may become
a good "friend" in the game --- even if the next morning at work you
may be insulting him personally... or the reverse might happen, too.

I always tell one of my favorite stories about my relations with a
player in a PBM that I've been playing for the last year and a half.
My neighbor was a vassal to a rival empire in formation, and I wrote a
letter offering to trade with her. My intentions were to win support
from a member of the rival empire in order to convince the emperor
that the kingdom I belonged to was a peaceful one --- and as a token
of peace, there was even flourishing trade between two of the border
nations. The letter I received as an answer was signed "Princess
Aurembiax" and accepted my offers. We established successful trade,
and later on made several alliances and promises of mutual help. Six
months later, I trusted "Princess Aurembiax" more than my own ruler
(whom I knew personally and disliked in the real world, but, as a
feudal vassal, I kept my bonds to the ruler of the kingdom --- and
still do, despite his horrible diplomacy and strategy). We announced
that invasion of any one of our two states was an invasion to the
other.  Both my king and her emperor respected this decision --- even
when my king declared war upon the empire (because both players, known
personally to each other, hated each other...).

Later on, my character married this "Princess Aurembiax" and we joined
our two nations. This was an obvious choice in a medieval game, where
marriages were just another form of alliance, and which fitted
naturally in such a setting. Because of this, her emperor spared my
nation from the war, and even supported it when the northern
barbarians came to wreck havoc upon the civilized southern states.

What I find most amusing in the game is that I still never met
"Princess Aurembiax" personally, and probably never will. I even don't
know her phone number, just one address from where she sends her
orders. We exchanged postcards on holidays, but not much more. I heard
that she is some ten years older than I am, and going to be married in
the real world soon. But in the game, she is my best ally and I trust
her completely, more even than other players who I know personally for
many years.

I have also one personal experience as a counter-example. This time, I
had established friendly relations with another player next to my
nation. It was a duchy devastated due to civil war, and I financed
part of its rebuilding, as I needed strong allies against the northern
barbarians. The alliance was going under way, until I discovered that
this player was married --- in the real world -- to one of the
barbarians.

Well, of course the husband of the player forced her to side against
me --- despite of her being traditionally a member of the kingdom I
belonged to.

It's quite obvious that friends joining a PBM almost always side
together against common foes. What perhaps isn't that obvious is that,
in the game, new friends and enemies may appear, which have nothing to
do with the situation in the real world. And it's easier to role-play
this if you personally don't know your adversaries. It's a game in
itself, judging your adversaries just from the messages you receive
from them. Also, it's quite different to write to your buddy, whom you
trust, than to write to someone else whom you don't know, but want to
gain their trust, friendship, and support. Diplomacy is easier if you
know how the others will react to your offers; it's harder and more
thrilling if you don't. A careful diplomatic offensive, prepared for
turns and turns, can be easily spoiled if suddenly you discover that
your adversary is the person you hate most in the world.

For instance, consider the classic vets-versus-newbies alliance. The
newcomers have really no chances there. The vets not only grasp the
implications of the rules better, giving them an edge, but they
effectively rule out any chances for survival of the newcomers ---
even if they *could* be superb players and strong allies. But just
because they are newcomers to the game, nobody wants to have them as
allies, and they are quickly disposed off (this may be an exaggeration
--- *some* of them, after all, are spared). And being a vet does not
mean one is a competent strategist --- it just means he has the
advantage of knowing the rules, and how to twist them just to destroy
that innocent newbie.

Prejudices such as this one create abnormal tendencies in the game. Of
course, nothing is fair in the real world, so games reflect this.  But
it is possible to measure an individual's strengths and weaknesses
just by his abilities shown in the game, and not by what he is in the
real world.

Here's yet another personal example: in the PBM I joined long ago,
most of the players are from two different real-world cities.  Once
one of the players from one of the cities made a treacherous (but, of
course, legitimate) move against another player from the other city.
Since then, a full-scale war has erupted between the players of each
city, independent of former alliances or other organizations. They
would attack only players of the other city, to defend the "brothers"
of their own city. Players like myself who allied to other nations,
ignoring the residence of its players, were soon labeled as "traitors
to the cause" by fellow residents, and mistrusted by the players of
the other city... well, one faction even created a religion just to
explain their moves (at least, that was a valid role-playing act)
against the other city. But being forced to ally only with players of
your own city is certainly stupid.

The situation has degenerated to the point where personal insults
between the players have been exchanged. This is one of the worst
examples of PBM role-playing I ever seen. Just to talk to a personal
friend you have in the other city (which is only natural) is an
offense and high treason "against the brothers", and you'll certainly
become involved in a war just for that, if someone finds out.

Nevertheless, this lead to an amusing situation: two brothers, living
in the different cities, and thus members of rival empires, happily
exchanged information between themselves. There was even a threat of
violence between players of the two cities --- in the real world, I
mean! Obviously, this has gone too far. Bad losers always exist; but
this is a case of collective hysteria, between adult players (and a
large group of them, too) who have forgotten that this is just a game.
Forgetting the role-playing aspect of the game is bad enough; allowing
emotions to be carried away outside the game is an exaggeration, a
really stupid one. And the players didn't stop at that --- in other
games, which players from the two cities have joined, the "conflict"
is still carried on (not just on other games, but also on different
types of games, too, which aren't connected at all with the original
one).

This would be barely acceptable with 12-year-old kids, but most of the
players are university students, even teachers, researchers, and
married couples with small children, all of them between 20 and 35
years old! Incredible, but true. I think, however, that in most games
such personal conflicts are never carried that far.

There is, of course, the classical case of the "friends' empire": a
group of friends join the game with the single purpose of creating a
strong empire. Even if they do not start the game in the same empire,
they most certainly will forget easily any previous allegiances and
work together for the common goal. Even if some of the members of the
group leave the game afterwards, the initial conditions will easily
give the other players an advantage. While this may seem "unfair" to
other, individual players, the fact is that this somewhat mimics the
real world, where groups of people with good relations are stronger
than individuals with his own ideas. So, the principle of the
"friends' empire", even if unfair for other players, is not
necessarily unrealistic. It is worse, of course, if already existing
structures fall apart just because friends in the real world decide
so.

So, the next time you begin writing your orders, think a little about
your role-playing in the game. Forget about what they think about you,
and what you think about them. This is, after all, a game --- and by
role-playing your position, and not only by "being yourself", you can
enjoy the game more.