Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"

[innerdude]

I've been thinking a lot lately about how despite having a tremendous amount of fun with RPGs over the years, I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

I know that most new systems these days have specific focuses on character backstory, personality traits, motivations, and desires. Even D&D, the long-time standard bearer for keeping the game more focused on gameplay rather than character driven needs, added new character-oriented traits in 5e, to say nothing of Fate which goes out of its way to purposefully bring these elements to the forefront of play.

And yes, these new character design features are incredibly useful in helping us as players come to "see" our characters as more "real" within the fiction. But in my experience, even the best of these character "hooks" or inputs don't seem to make a difference in driving an in-play narrative of substantive character change---i.e., the experience of watching a character materially change in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction.

It's generally agreed that one of the vital, key elements of great literature is a character "arc"---the observed phenomenon of a character or characters fundamentally coming to view the world and their place in it in new ways. It is these character journeys that create some of the most powerful, compelling moments that cause as us reader-participants to feel emotional resonance---to feel as if we are experiencing something meaningful, even if we are only having the experience referentially.

Obviously not having this kind of emotional resonance in RPG play doesn't mean that our player-characters aren't making "meaningful" choices. Players are often faced with having their characters act out in response to moral choices, in multiple gradations---we choose to fight for the noble baron instead of the greedy viscount; choose to let the orc leader live rather than killing him; choose to steal, but from only the top 10% of most wealthy citizens; choose to kill the evil sorcerer now to prevent the deaths of thousands later.

But the actual mechanical interplay of rules in a typical roleplaying game experience does almost nothing to promote the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature. At no time during a roleplaying session have I ever come close to having the vivid, deep, emotional response I felt when reading the last 100 pages of Guy Gavriel Kay's novel Under Heaven---nor even upon reflection am I able to see how the act of tabletop roleplaying would provide the means to do so.

It's interesting, because though I find "Railroad GM-ing" to be highly distasteful and generally anathema to the types of RPG experiences I personally would enjoy, I can begin to glimpse why a GM might try to use specific GM Force©™ in a campaign---because they think that the application of force to the "story" is a means to getting to some of that emotional resonance. It's a recognition on the part of the GM that emotional resonance is possible through a "story focus" that leads to potential meaning. Unfortunately, it seems that the application of GM Force runs counter to both endpoints---it detracts from the aspects of player freedom and choice, while only minimally (if at all) leading to the resonance made possible through the act of "pure creation" of fiction whole cloth.

And so I begin to wonder if the desire to have those kinds of emotionally resonant experiences during RPG play are somehow a fool's errand on my part. That I'm looking for a "character-driven" experience that simply isn't there and never really can be, and so should just accept RPG play for what it is, rather than trying to somehow keep reaching for this illusory experience that it's never once provided before.

 

[prabe]

I don't doubt your experiences, but I think some players can play that way, with some GMs. I don't think system really matters, here; as you say, there really isn't a rule that will change this. I know there are players in the longer-running of my two campaigns who are doing it. Now, at least one of them is a player who almost always manages to play her character, but the other is as capable of powergaming as just about anyone else I've gamed with.

I think there are some players and GMs who aren't interested in this kind of play, and I think there are some styles of play that aren't conducive to character arcs or other story-type concerns. My own campaigns are structured around the PCs choosing which goals to pursue, in which order, which seems to help some with this.

TRPGs have other pleasures though, and it sounds as though you're at least finding some of those.

 

[John Dallman]

Well, I experience what you seem to be seeking, but it does not come easily. The two things that seem to be necessary for it, in my case, are:

1. Playing the same character a lot. After something on the order of 100 hours of play, I start being able to think as the character very easily, and they start having a voice of their own in my head.
2. Thinking about them, and as them, outside of a game session. This is a kind of daydreaming, thinking about what the character's desires, fears, situation and environment are.

This combination of activities gives me a much deeper sense of identification with the character, and produces a sense of what they want from their life and adventures. It's - quite naturally - naturally easier with characters who think somewhat like me, but it isn't impossible with characters who are more alien.

 

[Arilyn]

I'm not sure that it's something that can be forced. I have played in games that are very character driven, and games that are fun, but far from deep drama. Both are appealing. Sometimes, a group that seems it's made up of characters poised for lots of character driven stories fizzle. Other times, a group thrown together with little thought, end up having rich memorable stories.

Having said this, I find games that focus on character, like Fate, are more likely to deliver.

 

[Retreater]

As a player, I wouldn't want that kind of deep emotional experience. I want to have a fun time with friends, play a game, grow in power, and explore a magical world. Deep emotional experience is better in different art forms: literature, music, theatre, etc. The main difference is that stories and plots and characters can all be developed in those art forms because there's a real constructed format. D&D is more like a jam band session.

 

[S'mon]

I've seen it occasionally; very rarely. Hakeem's dramatic arc in my Wilderlands online campaign, or my PC Zana Than in an old Midnight campaign. I don't think it can be forced.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But the actual mechanical interplay of rules in a typical roleplaying game experience does almost nothing to promote the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature.

RPGs are really much more like real life than they are like literature. You experience the world, and you make decisions based on those experiences, and things happen as a result of those decisions.

Overwhelmingly, the narrative formed by such a process will be lacking in much literary merit, because it wasn't a story that was artificially crafted to invoke a particular response. The narrative is one which is only meaningful to you, because you crafted it organically, based on your own decisions. Such is life.

 

[Celebrim]

And so I begin to wonder if the desire to have those kinds of emotionally resonant experiences during RPG play are somehow a fool's errand on my part. That I'm looking for a "character-driven" experience that simply isn't there and never really can be, and so should just accept RPG play for what it is, rather than trying to somehow keep reaching for this illusory experience that it's never once provided before.

How many players do you have?

There are two things you have to appreciate. First, the more players you have the less character driven the experience can be.

Secondly, Celebrim's Second Law of Roleplaying:

"How you think about playing a system is more important than the rules system itself."

No rules system can create a character driven experience. Only the participants working together can create a character driven experience. Conversely, every rules system can create emotionally resonant and literary experiences.

In my experience with emotionally resonant and literary experiences, they do not come cheaply and they cannot be forced. RP tends to be a very organic form of story telling characterized by its slow pace and its lack of structure. It takes a long while for story arcs to come to fruition in a meaningful manner, and when they do it is often rather unexpected by all the participants. A good GM can sometimes help it along by laying in place the right Chekov's Guns, and waiting for the right time to set them off, but it's never likely to be something were you get that emotional high all the time.

And the more players you have, the slower it goes, because the aesthetics of play that create that particular experience take a back seat to various sorts of group and individual challenges. Nothing in my experience quite matches the dramatic intensity of one on one RP or similarly small groups, and in my experience it's actually easier to accomplish that with text or other forms of communication that create emotional distance than it is face to face because face to face just gets awkward. I suspect that there are people that can pull it off, but they are probably a group that overlaps heavily with the group of people that are talented actors.

 

[Celebrim]

Having said this, I find games that focus on character, like Fate, are more likely to deliver.

If and only if, the participants in the game have narrative and introspective aesthetics of play when they sit down.

I'm convinced that FATE is only more likely to deliver narrative and introspective aesthetics of play, not because of its mechanics, but because it's players are more likely to think about what it means to play the game in that narrative fashion.

 

[uzirath]

Yeah, I rarely see the sort of character arc that you're talking about. Most of my campaigns these days are shorter runs and lighter than the sorts of games I used to play. In my big campaigns in the 1990s and early aughts, I did see it with a few characters. I agree with @Celebrim that this can be system independent, but I do think some systems features can nudge people toward different playstyles. In my GURPS campaigns, for example, players tend to create more characters with tragic flaws because of the disadvantage mechanic built into the system. While this doesn't necessarily lead to great roleplaying or character growth over time, it can lay some of the groundwork for that. I've definitely played with players in long-term games who actively use the system to craft an evolving character: buying down disadvantages over time, adding new disadvantages after traumatic experiences, etc. When done deftly, it has led to some extremely satisfying campaign arcs. And, while the mechanics are ultimately unnecessary because you could always just roleplay all of it freeform, they often help players to remain consistent.