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

[Sadras]

So what was at stake then?

I'm not certain if the correct term should be "at stake" as this fallout was already pre-planned by the players upon character generation and although they had laid the bread crumbs for this story arc along the way (now evident), both myself and the other players had missed them. We had noticed the peculiarities but had not picked up that this was going to explode.

So in essence (and I'm not doing their story much justice with this one paragraph) both are followers of Bahamut, one a paladin and another a warlock. Incidents along the way began to create doubt until eventually the truth of their individual relationship to their deity and each other was revealed. The paladin had always thought of her brother as a cleric to Bahamut who shared her love and respect for the deity. Her brother so as not to upset his sister had kept up the charade. In reality he despised Bahamut for having to beg and suffer for his divine blessing which he only did to protect his younger sister who seemed to always and naively place herself in danger for her foolish ideals. With the revelation that her brother's devotion to her beloved god was not genuine and that her supposedly loving god had exercised such an ugly servitude upon her sibling - the paladin began suffering a crisis of faith as her most important bonds in her life were revealed (in her eyes) to be false. All this played out through unscripted dialogue.

Needless to say, the player of the paladin is retiring her character (for now) - while the warlock now free from the burden of the lie, looked to continue on a different path (new class). I run two groups (ToD and SKT) who are now converging due to the main storyline. The player of the paladin is to create a new character to join the others.

Might we revisit these characters down the line, realistically yes since they play an integral roll - but that will require some discussion with the players about their characters, so that we may find an agreeable way to re-introduce them to each other and the story.

If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.What you're describing is players adding thespian touches to GM-driven play.

Ah, but that was not my initial contention though. Look again to what I responded to (cited below for ease)

There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM already knows what is to come.

Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be independently of the development by the players of their characters.

I feel the above statement is clearly false, given my above example.

 

[Sadras]

But part of me is feeling unsure if this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for. As I analyzed this, several thoughts came to mind:

So just at the outset my above reply to @chaochou might answer some of these concerns but more importantly I reiterated where my disagreement lies. And apologies for breaking up your post, I just find sometimes I can arrange my thoughts better this way.

• It's very cool that this was purely player-driven . . . but would it have been better if the players and GM had been collaborating to have this kind of experience all along? Would the rest of the players at the table been as equally invested and enjoyed such a thing had they known it was an available avenue of player agency?

• Who is to say what is better. I found the experience rewarding, would I have enjoyed it more if I was in on it? I don't know. We (the players and I) will likely collaborate on their entrance back into the storyline at some point. I do not feel everyone needs to be involved in every character arc all the time.

Is it even possible for this type of thing to be GM-led, or GM-guided? Or is this something that the GM cannot and should not try to artificially build or constrain?

I do not believe I would have run things differently had I known about it. The players would find opportunities to creatively seed their story. They did so while I was following the Storm King's Thunder AP.

• While this type of interaction could happen in any system, there are definite constraints in the core conceits of stereotypical fantasy roleplaying that would make sustaining this kind of activity difficult.
  • The idea that you have to have a "party", and that the "party" is supposed to stick together will quickly become a sticking point. In real life, when we as people begin to have divergent worldviews, or changing allegiances due to new life perspectives, we tend to change who we spend our time with. Truly character-driven play is going to be nigh impossible if the primary goal of the game is for "the party to stick together, because without you we can't defeat the big baddie, and no, I don't really care if your character would actually be involved or not. Figure out a viable reason for your character to do what the party is doing!" For character driven play, you have to accept the reality that the party is going to have to focus on character-driven needs. Otherwise, just like real life, the most "realistic" thing for a character to do might be to leave the party.
  • This goes back to @Celebrim's assertion that this kind of play is exceedingly difficult with a large cast of PCs. I'm guessing the most PCs you could have in a party to come even close to doing this kind of thing long term would be 3.
  • To really accomplish this kind of thing consistently, you have to be willing to accept as players that there's going to be a lot more "split screen" / non-focus time on your character. You have to be willing to let other people's characters "go where their desires take them," and sometimes you're going to just be the tag-along.

I do not disagree with any of this but this goes back to my point that the system although maybe helpful in for this style of roleplaying, does not matter overall. These kinds of players seeking dramatic character story-arcs can do so in any system, even D&D.

• For this kind of interplay to be more than just an incidental, one-off experience, the GM must be willing to let go of any notion of "where the game is supposed to go." It would require extreme flexibility and willingness on the part of the GM to truly go along with the player/character choices to their endpoint.

100% agree. Despite me running APs and I'm certainly grateful for the player buy-in, I have repeatedly made exit points for the group because I try, as best I can, to have an open game.

 

[pemerton]

Given that the vast majority of people in the hobby are playing D&D (mostly 5e) and thus - if they're reading this - will be trying to fit what's said into that paradigm, then D&D is always relevant.

This board has a stand-alone and very active D&D forum. This, though, is the General forum. The OP is known to anyone who has read his previous posts as a fan of Savage Worlds. He didn't mention D&D in his OP except as a (late) example of a trend to have character-oriented bells & whistles as elements of PC build. He didn't ask for advice about how to play D&D.

And that's no real surprise. Discussing D&D is largely unhelpful to addressing the issues raised in the OP. It may be possible to use D&D as a vehicle for character-driven play - I did so in the second half of the 80s, non-coincidentally using Oriental Adventures (which has resolution mechanics that go beyond combat, traps and dungeon doors) and later a modified skill system for AD&D that I subsequently learned was modelled on Rolemaster. But if someone is having trouble getting character-driven play going, why would we want to talk about D&D except to the extent - fairly well-known - that it poses many obstacles to character-driven play. (In this thread I would say @Ovinomancer has given the best account of them. All I would add/stress is that 5e D&D has no finality of player-initiated action resolution outside of combat.)

In a thread about whether a certain sort of character-driven RPGing is possible, let's talk about systems and associated techniques that actually aim at that and reliably produce it.

D&D - at least in its 5e variant - has many mechanical limitations that get in the way of mechanically-driven character arc play; namely, it has no mechanics for player-imposed finality of resolution outside of combat.

Doesn't make sense - you say it has mechanical limitations and then your example is a situation where is has no mechanics?

'No mechanics' is never a limitation;

If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.

in a character-based or social situation, unless a combat-worthy finality is somehow applied (e.g. one character charms or captures another) the situation is never truly finalized,

If it's always open to the GM to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, treat nothing as resolved, then there can't be character-driven play of the sort referred to in the OP - ie the mechanical resolution of action declarations generating a dramatic arc. There can only be GM decision-making about what story to establish.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaculata]

If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.

Do you really need game mechanics for that though?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

This board has a stand-alone and very active D&D forum. This, though, is the General forum. The OP is known to anyone who has read his previous posts as a fan of Savage Worlds. He didn't mention D&D in his OP except as a (late) example of a trend to have character-oriented bells & whistles as elements of PC build. He didn't ask for advice about how to play D&D.

And that's no real surprise. Discussing D&D is largely unhelpful to addressing the issues raised in the OP.

And ignoring D&D while addressing those issues is largely unhelpful to the vast majority of readers.

If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

Resolving chariot races need only draw on whatever that system might use for movement rules or chase/pursuit rules, modified by the GM to suit the situation.

"Resolving" interactions with prophets or holy types rolls right into the point I'm trying to make: those interactions can occur and be roleplayed through but IMO without external pressure (which would almost invariably drift quickly into combat rules and-or GM fiat) they cannot ever be resolved in finality.

You meet the prophet, you hear what the prophet has to say, and the meeting for whatever reason ends. Even if that meeting can never be repeated (the prophet dies, or is no longer accessible, or whatever) it's still entirely up to each individual character* what to make of that meeting, and whether or not to act on anything the prophet said (or didn't say).

* - perhaps in discussion with others in the party, but this isn't mandatory.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.

Here I suppose it hinges on what you mean by "mark on the gameworld". If you mean something like a PC trying to rise to become Empress of the realm or a party trying to overthrow a barony* then I think we're talking about similar sorts of things.

* - by the party's own choice; though this could just as easily be a GM-guided plot.

If it's always open to the GM to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, treat nothing as resolved, then there can't be character-driven play of the sort referred to in the OP - ie the mechanical resolution of action declarations generating a dramatic arc. There can only be GM decision-making about what story to establish.

This is just it, though: in any roleplay situation that doesn't have an artificially-forced closure it's also always open to me-as-PC/player to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, and-or treat nothing as resolved as long as a) those involved the first time are still around i.e. not dead or far away, and b) those involved are still in control of their own thoughts and-or opinions i.e. not charmed or otherwise mechanically restricted. If I don't agree with what the Duke had to say the first time before he shut me down, I can always try to talk to him again - maybe he's changed his mind or had second thoughts. By the same token, if the Duke doesn't like the answer we-as-party give him when he tries to send us on a mission, he can always try to ask again. There's no hard closure on these sorts of things, and yes, sometimes it can result in things going in circles - just like real life.

This no-forced-closure idea holds even more water if the situation mostly involves one or more other PCs rather than any particular elements of the setting and-or its NPCs.

Example: I-as-PC might be trying to talk the party into chipping in funds toward a castle for use as a home base. Should a game mechanic be allowed to determine whether I succeed or fail? Of course not! It's up to me to roleplay the request in character in such a way as to get the response I want, and up to the other players to respond as they would in character to the request. And if they say 'no', a game mechanic should never prevent me from trying again later or - if I'm less wise - from continuing to badger them about it till hell's half frozen over. Again, though, I stress that the GM has to allow however much time it takes for this discussion to play out; and not get impatient.

Or, in a different vein take two PCs (or groups of) who have for whatever reason established a non-deadly rivalry of one-upsmanship within the party that drives most of their in-character decision-making. Regardless what the GM might put in front of them, any decision those characters make is likely to be filtered through how it might affect that rivalry; perhaps even getting to the point where the GM's hooks and stories are ignored in favour of acting in furtherment of one side of the rivalry: "You met the Duke, did ya? Gave us a mission [GM hook]? Well it's just going to have to wait, because I've got a date with Prince Vonwe next week and anything he wants us to do will of course take priority." (I saunter off, and then frantically start pulling every string I can to get this date 'cause I was making that crap up and if I don't deliver I'm screwed! And even if I get the date, if Vonwe doesn't have a mission for us I'll have to dream one up because there's no way in hell that popinjay Fighter's setting our agenda if I can help it!)

There's no way in the world a social game mechanic should ever be able to step in and say "Sorry, rivalry's over in finality, here's who won".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

1. A attacks B. Resolved through game mechanic?

2. Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B. Resolved through game mechanic?

3. A intimidates B to get through the gate. Resolved through game mechanic?

4. The House of A intimidates the House of B to stand down in the war. Resolved through game mechanic?

5. A tries to life the sword of excalibur. Resolved through game mechanic?

6. A becomes the King of the Realms. Resolved through game mechanic?

The scope (social, combat) and level of granularity (micro, macro) can vary and be a matter of preference; there are many people that feel that if the game mechanics get too macro, or too outside of certain areas, it's not quite right, whereas other prefer game mechanics (even abstract ones) for macro and social areas as an aid to gameplay. There isn't really a wrong, so much as preferences. IMO.

In order:

1. Yes (combat)
2. Maybe (if the game has suitable mechanics then Yes, otherwise probably comes down to GM fiat)
3. No (roleplay)
4. No if PCs are involved in the negotiations (roleplay); if PCs are not involved then see 2. above.
5. No (resolution determined by setting fiat - if you ain't Arthur, that sword's not going anywhere)
6. Yes and No - see below.

Regarding 6, if A is a PC and is trying to become King there's going to be a gajillion sub-steps along the way, some of which will take mechanics to resolve (e.g. anything involving combat, stealth, etc.) and some of which will - or should! - be roleplayed (e.g. any political discussions, negotiations, deal-bartering, etc.).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*