i feel pretty strongly about this one... when you play in rpgs (and like board games even) you should play with people who agree with you about what's a good thing to do in the game. this is hard to do! when an rpg presents a group of players with a problem, each player will come up with a different solution to the problem. then they'll try to do all the things, in all of the directions at once. what ends up happening is a sort of average of all the things, this is ok! that's an rpg.
but like it happens sometimes you'll find yourself in a game with a player who always wants to do the opposite thing. it's like youre in an iterated prisoners dilemma with a person who always defects, no matter what. you might find that you hate this person, because they suck. because this is a person who can be counted on to suck, either all the time, or only exactly when the chips are down and it matters most. you shouldn't continue playing in the same game as this person. sometimes you'll continue to play for years in a game with someone who sucks, because they keep showing up to the same game as you. what can we do about this?
so i think.... i've heard that, the original reason for 'alignment' in rpgs is to cut down on this sort of problem. all of the characters are tagged with a valence on how they'll respond to situations. if a character has the opposite valence (it is ruled) you cannot be in the same party with them. if the two of you want to be in the same party you'll have to agree to make characters that share a valence.
this is the classic nerd solution of making a rule to avoid working out a interpersonal problem. does it work? it might! but people are pretty down on alignment these days. but maybe it doesn't work. and rpgs are real, so... maybe you'll be mad about it forever.
what about drama?
sadly, we're going to have to introduce nuance here, because drama means both things, sadly. but suppose we're talking about 'dramatic' drama rather than interpersonal drama.
so i think theres a play culture where drama is very important and a play culture where drama is not very important, because cooperation is important instead.
in the dramatist mode, it's important for the characters to have different motivations, goals and flaws, drives, these should be sometimes at odds with each other. that's where the fun is. it's a game about navigating these differences. with flair and panache, presumably. some people prefer flair but others prefer panache. the game kinda gives you this by default. fighter, rogue, cleric, and magic user, are not just different toolkits, they're different philosophies, and any pairing between these could be a classic odd couple, depending on the situation.
in the cooperativist mode, its more of like a game theory exercise. you get a limited number of turns, each person gets one turn every half hour or so. how can you get the most stuff done? well, the interests of the players have to be aligned. they all have to be working towards the same goal. that's where the fun is. seeing what you can achieve if you get everything pointed in the same direction.
anyway i think the cooperativist mode is the real game, but whatever.
so what about interpersonal drama?
idk man. just don't play with that person.
