And now for something completely different... part of an e-mail post Bob Butler sent me lo these many eons ago. He's referring to a zine I wrote that saw print in IR #9. Finally, finally, I can get around to answering it. Sorry it took so long, Bob!

Let's take this one question at a time.

No, it's not. The template of leader/ second/ soldier/ rebel may sound static, but it never is. People and situations constantly change. I've found how many leaders, soldiers, rebels, or seconds there are is pretty much irrelevant. It is not imperative that all the slots be filled all the time, nor must the same person always fill the same slot. Today's soldier could easily be tomorrow's rebel, and the day after that the leader.

In my opinion, the most stable situation is one where there are no dueling egos. In a good game with good people and no ego problems the appropriately skilled person will fill the appropriate slot, for as long as is necessary.

Static situations ordinarily make me wary -- it usually means someone's dearly held beliefs or ego is tied to the maintenance of the static situation. If you attempt to change it, you can bet your efforts will be fought (whether covertly or overtly) by the person(s) who has/have the most to lose by a change in the status quo.

The answer to the question depends on the game and the players. Ordinarily, non-destructive change is good. Keep in mind when I say rebel it can as easily mean the person who reminds the group that they've a code against killing, as someone in black leather and a bad haircut.

This question says to me that you see these as static roles. Don't think of them that way -- they are merely labels of convenience to apply situationally. In one run alone it's possible to have the roles swap around several times as different people with different skills react to the problems at hand.

Let me try to explain with an example. We have a group of new super heroes -- new enough that they're not sure yet if they want to be supers. There's Thunderbird, a lightning projector with too much flight, and a military background. There's N2, an ice (of sorts) elemental, who's a scientist in daily life. There's Moriah, a half tiger, half humanoid, who is a doctor and geneticist, and a befriended street kid with wind powers named Zephyr. Finally there's Jack Flash, a rock star with hallucinations that occasionally manifest solidly.

Ordinarily you'd think the military person would lead, yes? The doctor and the scientist would both be good at either being seconds or soldiers; the rock star would be the rebel or the leader, and the street kid would be a good rebel or soldier. However, that's not exactly how it shook down.

The rock star, unsurprisingly, thought he should lead. Unfortunately his idea of leading was to do the silliest thing he could think of, since he believed this was all one of his hallucinations. When people stopped following his orders (due to self-preserving urges), he became a sulky and disruptive rebel. The military person just wanted to be given his orders -- he wanted to be a soldier. The geneticist was horribly scared of hurting someone, due to her great (and at that time poorly controlled) strength, and thus her medical training was causing everyone else all kinds of annoyance, as she kept trying to keep people from hurting the "bad" guys -- she was a definite, disruptive rebel. The street kid had a crush on her, and wouldn't follow anyone's orders but hers -- he was a soldier. The scientist turned out to be an idealist -- he tended to have a very chivalric attitude about "doing the right thing." This does not make for a good leader, but it didn't stop him. He'd charge into battle regardless of whether anyone followed him or not.

Needless to say, this was not a stable situation. After one particularly messy encounter, the group almost broke up due to bickering. The one thing they all agreed on was that they needed a leader. So they voted on it.

The street kid, Zephyr, nominated Moriah, the geneticist. The rock star, Jack Flash, knew no one would vote for him. He was pretty sure he couldn't manipulate Moriah, but that N2 was friendly to him, so he nominated N2. The vote was settled by Thunderbird, the ex-military guy, who voted for Moriah. His reasons, when given later, were that he believed that Moriah needed to be put in a position of leadership, because then she would feel responsible for the group, not for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street. Also, he didn't want a leader that one of the team felt he could manipulate, since that would simply cause more problems further down the road. When N2 had this line of reasoning explained to him, he indignantly asked Jack Flash if this were true. Jack didn't give him a straight answer, so N2 changed his vote to Moriah rather than himself.

Okay, back to "out of character" for a recap. We started out the run with a group that consisted of two soldiers (Thunderbird and Zephyr), two rebels (Jack Flash and Moriah), and one ignored leader wanna-be (N2). This was an unstable and dangerous condition. Subsequent to the voting, we have an entirely new situation: Moriah is the leader. N2, Thunderbird, and Zephyr are the soldiers. When necessary, or in Moriah's absence, Thunderbird moves to second due to his military experience. Jack Flash is the rebel, and will never change that position. The player eventually leaves the game.

Does this better explain the essentially fluid nature of the leader/ second/ soldier/ rebel paradigm?

To return to your question:

Conflict doesn't have to be a disagreeable situation. As I stated above, it could simply be a rebel reminding his leader that 'heroes' don't kill, or pointing out that members of Bad Guy Group X(tm) react better to offers of immunity than to a threatened beating from the leader. From the way you've stated the question, however, I get the feeling that the word 'conflict' is being used in a negative sense. I'll try to answer accordingly.

A GM who wants to "liven things up by creating scenarios where the rebel's answers work better than the leader's" would worry me. This smacks too much of favoritism, and ordinarily I'd say no. The only circumstance I can see where the GM might want to do something like this is if the position of leader of the team is supposed to be held by a particular character. If that character is always being overshadowed by someone else, then the role of leader is being held by someone else.

The GM might want to take both players aside and have a long chat with them. Perhaps the position of leader should be reassigned. Perhaps Jack Flash's player should give Moriah's player a little more time to think, rather than butting immediately in with a solution. Ultimately both characters will be accomplished only in the things the GM allows them to be accomplished in -- it's tough to say your PC is the "greatest swordsperson on earth" when the GM keeps sending better swordsmen to trounce you.

I can't say as I'd recommend the GM doing that, however. That seems a little too much like railroading to me. I'll always advocate talking the problem out before humiliating the character in order to manipulate the player. If talking doesn't settle the problem, then maybe someone is in the game that shouldn't be.

Hopefully that answers your questions. As far as other basic questions about role-playing and their essentially quadri-polar paradigms, I have no idea! :-)

A heartfelt thank you to Chris Aylott, who was most kind in his praise of my reprinted zine in IR #9. Thanks also to George Phillies, Doug Jorenby, and Pete Maranci, who thoughtfully commented on my zine -- RAEBNC.

Mark Sabalauskas

Since it's been so long, I'm just going to reprint what Mark wrote:

*sigh* I wish I could say yes. However, I've come to some conclusions on the way I play which affect my belief in my ability to game.

My early education was heavily influenced by the British teachers I had. Consequently I tend to write in a rather formal style. This style of writing is apparently and unfortunately much more formal than what Americans are used to seeing -- people constantly assume I'm trying to be a stuck-up jerk when I'm trying to be polite and precise.

I was raised around animals (who have yet to talk to me -- to my considerable chagrin as a child) which use body language and vocal tone to indicate their mood and meaning. I've gotten good at reading non-verbal communication -- mostly emotion rather than specific causes.

Both these things, unfortunately, mean that in a non-verbal medium I can happily burble along for quite some time, completely unaware that I've mortally offended my correspondent. I find these things to be a great detriment in a PBEM.

So... I'm not really sure what to do right now. I seem to offend people in a face to face medium, and I seem to do the same over the net. Currently I've quit all my serious gaming while I give this some thought.

Gil Pili

I'd have to agree with you, in that luck does have a lot to do with it. However, some pre-planning does help. Just a few examples: don't play with people that (out of game) you have nothing to say to; don't play with folks that bristle when you're around; if you're a very vocal player don't game face-to-face in large groups -- or others won't have any play time; play with people that game for the same reasons you do... stuff like that. These may seem blindingly obvious, but it's rather easy to think, well, just this once should be okay -- I'm only doing it for my friend the GM... and before you know it, the game's up in flames due to interplayer conflicts. No fun.

I've actually not had much problem gaming with shy people. I don't like being interrupted, so I don't see why anyone else would like it either. If I see a shy person being conversationally trampled, I'll try to keep it from happening. Also, I try to keep the group together if possible: "I'm about to translate the Rosetta stone? Wait! I want to call the team to come see this -- that way we'll all get to read it together." Of course, I have no idea if the shy players I've played with go home, at night after the game, and stick pins into collie dolls. :-)

Mostly I just want to be told if there's a problem. If the offended person and I can talk about it, there's a possibility of reconciliation. However, if the offended person decides for both of us that no compromise is viable and refuses to talk to me, there's not much I can do. Consequently the problem will never get solved -- I'm not a mind-reader!

Last Updated: Sat May 17 1997