Gaming in the Third World

Today we talk about in-game Trust between characters as a “hidden” mechanic in the political/social aspect of roleplaying games.

At its very core, Roleplaying Games have been about the social maneuvering of the Player Characters, as well as their ability to kill things and take their stuff.  Social maneuvering has proven to be a solid aspect of the game, whether it’s haggling with the Mysterious Stranger who walks into the tavern with a map, or the more Byzantine social maneuverings of a local Consilium in Mage: the Awakening.

As such, it’s important to also consider the role that in-game trust plays in a game.  In-game trust is not trust between players, nor is it about the GM and the players.  In-game trust is about trust between Player Characters, as well as between PCs and NPCs.

But before we continue, let’s take a look at what “trust” means.

• To trust is to believe in the integrity, ability or character of a person or thing.
• Reliance on something in the future, hope.
• To expect with assurance
• To place in care of another

As you can see, Trust is a pretty heavy concept, but it will revolve around two primary parties, one that does the Trusting, or Trustor and the receipient, or Trustee.  In an act of trust, the Trustor puts himself at the mercy of the Trustee, in the sense that the Trustor commits an investment in the form of resources, information (or in relationships, emotions) to the Trustee, with the belief that the Trustee will perform according to what has been agreed upon.

Now, trust is further complicated by how it behaves and affects both parties, as described by the Foundations of Social Theory by James S. Coleman (taken from Wikipedia):

1. Placement of trust allows actions that otherwise are not possible (i.e. trust allows actions to be conducted based on incomplete information on the case in hand).
2. The person in whom trust is placed (trustee) is trustworthy, then the trustor will be better off than if he or she had not trusted. Conversely, if the trustee is not trustworthy, then the trustor will be worse off than if he or she had not trusted (this is reminiscent of a classical prisoner’s dilemma).
3. Trust is an action that involves a voluntary transfer of resources (physical, financial, intellectual, or temporal) from the truster to the trustee with no real commitment from the trustee (again prisoner’s dilemma).
4. A time lag exists between the extension of trust and the result of the trusting behavior.

So, now that we’ve gone through all those definitions, why the heck am I talking about this in a roleplaying game blog?  For one thing, as a GM, I tend to put a lot of thought into the NPCs that I run and how they react to PCs.  Some of them might want the player characters to do something for them, while others might have something that the PCs need in turn.

Now, as you can imagine, what facilitates the exchange of the haves from the have nots, is trust.  While sometimes money is involved, any transaction of resources, influence or favors begins and ends with the act of trust.

So, how does this come into play?

Each of the NPCs I make have a hidden Trust stat.  Their trustworthiness is established at character creation, and is modified based on circumstance, threat level, and other modifiers that may influence their opinion of the characters.  Thus a reputation for being able to “Get the job done” makes it easier for people to pony up larger sums to pay for a service to be performed.

This reputation earned by the PCs isn’t a stat, it’s done by their dealings with people who know people who talk to people.  Therefore, if the player characters are consistent, trustworthy and capable, they can expect doors to open, and favors to be performed on their behalf in turn.

Overall, nothing incredibly different from a standard rpg paradigm… but trust, as defined earlier, cuts both ways.

In the Mage: the Awakening campaign I’m running, player characters occasionally find themselves in a position of being the Trustor as opposed to the Trustee.  This makes for an interesting dilemma as they are now the ones who have to take a risk.  The tables are turned, and the PCs are forced to pony up info or resources, and pray that they trusted the right person.

Another interesting phenomena I’ve noticed is that since I spend the first 2 seasons building up individual stories for everyone and began to cross their games together late, the PCs themselves don’t completely trust each other.  Some, like Gil and Yuuko, trust each other professionally.  Others, like Guile Chambers, don’t trust anyone at all to any degree.

As such the group’s ability to cooperate is hampered, and the resources they can gather and benefit from are stunted.  Unable to truly invest in the goodwill and ability of the other cabals, they have to rely on what they can possibly take and hold.  Even as their opponents begin to close in on them.

—-

So now that we’ve established the nature of in-game trust, let’s look at a different situation.  In Sheimaruen’s Hunter: the Vigil campaign, our characters are Mortals in the World of Darkness, going up against a Pylon of the Seers of the Throne.  We’re outgunned, outmanned, and certainly have no access to Awakened Magic, and yet we were able to mount a defense above the level that we could possibly have done alone thanks to the magic of networking.

By carefully cultivating favors and trust in various groups (the police, crime syndicates, Taoist temples, the media, etc.) the player characters then are able to mobilize resources that they would otherwise not have had.  This became crucial near the climax of the campaign, when the opposition struck at multiple points in the city.  With only 4 player characters, there was no way for us to cover all the bases, but thanks to the miracle of cellphones (which were thankfully spared from the devastation,) we were able to prevent the worst from happening.

—-

Maybe this is a lot of talk over something simple, but it does bear repeating.  The act of trust is an investment.  And like any investment, it takes time to research the trustee, make sure they’re worthy of it, and wait until the returns come back to you.  Likewise, it’s never a good idea to break someone’s trust in you since it’s very difficult to get back, and may spell doom for the rest of those who used to trust you once they hear of what you’ve done.

So in closing, let’s go through the numbers again:

• Learn to cultivate trust, both in yourself and in others
• Trust can enable the use of resources that would otherwise not be available to you
• Trust involves risk, but also promises good returns
• Reliance is not trust, and neither is Coercion
• Trustworthiness is not easily gained when it is lost