I think it’s worth teasing out the three levels at which I think ‘generosity’ operates at the table. I list them in what I regard as their order of importance.
First, at the topmost meta-level, is the conduct between players and GM at the table. This is the most salient because it is real and it necessarily underpins all that follows. Doesn’t matter what it’s called - civility, social grace, common sense. I actually think ‘generosity’ is a very good catch-all term.
Second, the lower meta-level where I, as a player, knowing what another player wants to achieve or play out in the game, acts as my character to allow their character to do that which they desire. This need not, of course, amount to ‘helping’ in any in-game sense. The other player might want their character to experience disappointment or frustration or betrayal and so my character’s words and actions could conceivably be extremely ‘ungenerous’ in some senses.
Third, and least important to me, is whether my character is ‘generous’ within the fiction. I’m not that interested in playing heroes or ‘good guys’ (in fact, my most recent post is an argument for why one should consider playing unsympathetic characters) and I don’t care much if my character is disliked by the other characters or within the context of the setting. Obviously, there are limits to this - I’m as uninterested in playing tiresome two-dimensional villains that can so easily fracture group cohesion as I am in depicting boring cardboard cut-out heroes. This is not to say that ‘generous’ characters can’t be interesting but, for me, they are often more compelling to play as Candide-like characters - naïfs in a cruel world.
I think it’s worth teasing out the three levels at which I think ‘generosity’ operates at the table. I list them in what I regard as their order of importance.
First, at the topmost meta-level, is the conduct between players and GM at the table. This is the most salient because it is real and it necessarily underpins all that follows. Doesn’t matter what it’s called - civility, social grace, common sense. I actually think ‘generosity’ is a very good catch-all term.
Second, the lower meta-level where I, as a player, knowing what another player wants to achieve or play out in the game, acts as my character to allow their character to do that which they desire. This need not, of course, amount to ‘helping’ in any in-game sense. The other player might want their character to experience disappointment or frustration or betrayal and so my character’s words and actions could conceivably be extremely ‘ungenerous’ in some senses.
Third, and least important to me, is whether my character is ‘generous’ within the fiction. I’m not that interested in playing heroes or ‘good guys’ (in fact, my most recent post is an argument for why one should consider playing unsympathetic characters) and I don’t care much if my character is disliked by the other characters or within the context of the setting. Obviously, there are limits to this - I’m as uninterested in playing tiresome two-dimensional villains that can so easily fracture group cohesion as I am in depicting boring cardboard cut-out heroes. This is not to say that ‘generous’ characters can’t be interesting but, for me, they are often more compelling to play as Candide-like characters - naïfs in a cruel world.
Well teased. I love to play anti-heroes similar to Clint Eastwood characters.