OSR - Status

Another instalment in my Chaotic mini-series of story-game techniques ripe for the pillaging by adventure gamers. Graham Walmsley wrote a good summary of the improv concept of Status in his book Play Unsafe.

The cliff notes is that high or low status can be granted (such as a team leader/king, or lackey/convict) or assumed (such as acting confidently and in charge, or acting deferentially).

We can also consider status separately between the player, game (mechanics), and character (narrative): a high status player (whether granted or assumed) might play a low level and hence status thief, or vice versa.

In nearly all interesting relationships there is a status differential (even subtle) that colours the interpersonal interactions, and one of the prime sources of narrative comes from status changes (where swift upheavals are more comic, while slow-burns are more dramatic or tragic).

Despite the clear basis of character level informing game status (through HD, saves, spells - let alone acquired gold and magic items), and the unavoidable differences in player status, there is usually a presumption of quite flat character status. Prior to achieving so-called 'name level' with strongholds and followers, most characters are presented (and in my experience played) as wandering vagrants with no clear place in the social hierarchy. A more granular approach to rising (and threatened!) status is implied by games like Earthdawn, but certainly far from the norm.

Perhaps more interesting still is to explore status differentials between the player characters (PCs). Its usually taken was writ that the PCs should be harmonious & egalitarian in pursuing the 'team goals:' a framing that is summarised by the motto play to win. In this context, it is usually undesirable for some to have status (and hence power) over their fellow players.

Story games conversely promote the motto of play to lose: leaning into flaws and opportunities to see our characters fall and succumb to their darker selves (related to an author stance of play). This can be frustrating in an adventure game context when the game is being played somewhat adversarially: the PCs versus the world, arbitrated by a putatively just and neutral Referee. Someone who makes poor gameplay decisions 'because it's what my character would do' in this setting is working against the team effort.

Yet the Nordic LARP scene coined another approach, termed play to lift: this is working to support whatever approach and intent your fellow players are taking in the moment. This naturally pairs with more status-informed play: both sides of a high-low-status dyad can play to 'lift' the other, which will on occasion include a status reversal when prompted by the fiction. This can more comfortably accommodate status differentials alongside adventure game play: we can highlight the conflicted relationship when it won't jeopardise the mission, but still lean in and pull together when the stakes are high.

Lastly, I'd be remiss to not highlight the importance of communication (safety) tools. In establishing a status difference between PCs, it's important to check in at the player level - both at the outset, and later during moments of relationship tension. It's critical to maintain a clear line between the commanding PC barking orders at their subservient fellow PC, and the desired minimal status difference between those two players as humans around a table playing a game together.