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

[prabe]

To be clear, “x is not natural so it’s not good” is not on my claim.

What you’ve done about is accidentally inverted who is making that claim. I’m disputing the claim, it making it.

This is not a new claim to this thread. It predates it by many many years and includes the claim of “martial control of melee engagements is mind control and therefore unnatural nonsense” as well as this conversation of social conflict mechanics. I’ve been on this side of both of those conversations (disputing the claim that (a) the other side gets to claim “the natural” and (b) one approach is therefore bad based on “the natural.”)

Apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying "unnatural equals bad" by saying that "unnatural doesn't equal bad." Nor did I mean to ascribe to you the claim you were in fact disputing. Oops. I think I have to mostly agree with your position, on the facts, but I don't think anyone is necessarily doing it wrong. My own preference in games is mechanics to support inter-character interaction (deception, diplomacy, and the like) but nothing that forces a character to behave a certain way outside the player's control (or as close as possible to the last).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

Apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying "unnatural equals bad" by saying that "unnatural doesn't equal bad." Nor did I mean to ascribe to you the claim you were in fact disputing. Oops. I think I have to mostly agree with your position, on the facts, but I don't think anyone is necessarily doing it wrong. My own preference in games is mechanics to support inter-character interaction (deception, diplomacy, and the like) but nothing that forces a character to behave a certain way outside the player's control (or as close as possible to the last).

Thank you for the apology.

However, neither offense nor the apology are warranted and I'm not going to take the liberty of contriving unwarranted offense.

Simple mistake. Its easy to lose track of things in the course of these long conversations and its easy to misinterpret my obnoxious prose, doubly so when I'm posting from my phone and its trolling me/us by auto-correcting things in a nonsensical way.

I just wanted to clarify things. All good.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But here's the rub: if PC-PC relations are determined by their players then in the interest of consistency PC-NPC relations must as far as possible also work this way, and RAW be damned.

And this cuts to the root of a fundamental disagreement in game design philosophy. Are the rules intended as a physics model, where the world follows the logic of the rules - and almost you start with the rules to get the world? Or are the rules intended as a user interface where what is happening in the world is largely approximated by the rules.

If the rules are intended to be a user interface then the consistency doesn't have to hold water. If they are a physics model you get weird results.

I think that not having any social based mechanics at all leaves everything up to choice. The player decides how their character feels about everything. The GM decides how the NPCs react to the PCs.

But what about when someone feels something without choosing to?

We’ve all found ourselves provoked to anger. Or overcome by desire. Or stricken with fear.

Sometimes these things are not choices. Having a game mechanic that may help replicate that lack of total control over ourselves seems like a potentially powerful tool for a game.

It is potentially incredibly powerful for game design. On the other hand doing it badly can have very bad consequences and it's very hard to do well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, I'm not trying to speak for @Lanefan here, just responding inline. I'm also going to be snipping for convenience and readability; I'll try not to change the meaning by changing the context.

Sure. Mechanics are necessary whenever anything important is at stake. While I understand the reasoning behind "roleplay all the interactions" I prefer for there to be mechanics, because there may be disparities between player competencies and character competencies.

Yeah, that's part of it. A highly competent trial lawyer is likely going to be far more skilled at verbal persuasion and argument than the average person.

But beyond that is the idea that things that we know about our characters can change without our permission. They don't happen because I've decided that my character is now angsty because his family was killed, or any similar characterization element. Instead, they happen as the result of play.

When there are mechanics that involve aspects of the character such as their beliefs or goals or flaws, then those mechanics are kind of by default character driven game elements.

I think some people don't see that a mechanic that (more or less) forces a character to behave a certain way is more character-driven than player choice is.

I'm going to go with a loose example that doesn't use any specific system, just for the sake of discussion.

If I give my character a flaw that he struggles with deep and unfathomable anger, then having mechanics that pull that forth as a focus of play.....will he give in to his anger or can he overcome it.....means that the actual gameplay is determining the outcome. The gameplay is about whether my character succeeds or fails to control his anger.

This, to me, seems like the kind of play that is character driven, more so than a player simply deciding on characterization of his character based on the fictional elements of the game.

I think this is exactly why some people react so strongly to mechanics that (more or less) force their character to behave in ways the player doesn't choose.

Yes, for sure! I think there's strong resistance to this stuff because for a long time, many games have conditioned people to think that their character is their domain, and any decision for the character is to be made by the player.

And there is nothing wrong with that kind of play. I don't think people should play games where they don't enjoy the mechanics, and I don't think that all games need to have such mechanics.

Jack might be very important to Jack's story, but neither Jack nor Jack's story is necessarily very important to the world.

I am not sure that rejecting mechanics that (more or less) remove control of characters from the players is the same thing as rejecting the importance of character.

For the first, what world do you mean? The fictional world within the game? I get the idea of this, but really, nothing matters to the fictional world. It's fiction. I think what matters has to be more about the players. Their characters are the way they've chosen to interact with the fiction....so it's everything, in that sense. Sure, they may be disposable or easily replaced, but it's still the vital connection to the fiction.

For the second, I don't think it's a pure one or the other kind of situation. But I think that it's hard to not place importance on who the characters are specifically if you want character driven play. If the characters in the story can be easily swapped out for another, and little is changed about the course of play, then I don't think that it's strongly character driven play. I don't think that means that it is entirely absent of character driven elements, just that they are less central to play.

A serious question: If the story of the game is something that emerges from play, how is player choice any different from authorial choice? If you say that a player cannot choose for his character, it seems as though you're saying an author cannot choose, either. Please try not to be too abstruse in answering; I managed to drop out of both high school and college.

I think that in most cases there is definitely player choice. Usually in the form of some goal or belief or something that they've selected at character generation. To go back to my example, I create a character in the game and I give him a flaw of "struggling with deep and unfathomable anger" that means that I, as a player, am choosing for that to be a focus of play. I'm basically saying to the GM "here's one of the things I want to explore in this game". That flaw can be tested through play, and ultimately, it's the play that will determine success or failure for the character.

If the system instead allows me at any time to decide how my character behaves, then it may be a flaw that never comes up in play, or will only come up when I as a player decide it's convenient. The character's "struggle with deep and unfathomable anger" is anything but.

Now, there are players that maybe play with a strong sense of character, and who will allow such a flaw to meaningfully complicate play for them. There's nothing that really prevents this kind of play.

It's just that a game that has character traits and mechanics that promote this tend to do it more readily.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

@hawkeyefan Thanks for the serious answer. I think that where we are disagreeing, we are disagreeing around the edges, and probably around issues of personal taste/preference. While it's ... clarifying, I guess, to discuss things as though they are dichotomies, frequently they aren't. Seems to me as though we both realize that.

 

[Manbearcat]

A serious question: If the story of the game is something that emerges from play, how is player choice any different from authorial choice? If you say that a player cannot choose for his character, it seems as though you're saying an author cannot choose, either.

This is a great question and a great way to focus conversation. Thanks for asking it.

Here is what I would say as it relates to systemization of the type we're discussing in this thread.

There are 3 types of possible agency here:

Type 1 - The GM has their say

Obstacle/adversity/threat interposes itself between player and goal.

Type 2 - Player has their say

My character thinks/feels/does x. This requires no mediation by GM or by rules. It is now true in the fiction. This can be either (a) GM says "yes" or (b) outright fiat (the player has a move/feature that binds the GM to oblige new relevant fiction based upon it; When you enter an important location (your call) you can ask the GM for one fact from the history of that location.).

However, there is another kind. (c) The GM presents the player with a difficult but interesting choice between outcome a or outcome b (both which have clear attendant fiction which changes the situation). Once the player chooses, the fiction emerges accordingly.

Type 3 - The system has its say

Sally the Druid has the move Elemental Mastery. She rolls 2d6 + Wis (2) to find out what happens when she calls on the primal spirits of fire, water, earth or air to perform a task for her. She outright fails with a 6 or less (and marks xp).

The GM now must make a hard move against the player bound by the rules/principles/play agenda (something that has an immediate cost, changes the situation dynamically for the worse, fills their lives with adventure, and follows from the preceding fiction). The move says on a miss, some catastrophe occurs as a result of your calling. That further constrains/binds the GM's new post-player-move fiction. There is no opting out by the player or GM and no massaging the situation for better or worse. There are specific constraints/parameters.

---

In the entirety of this context, lets sub "player" for "participant", including both GM and those running PCs.

How do you think "authorial choice" and "participant choice" relate to one another when you've got competing interests and rules/role constraints that bind or deny authorship rights?

Put another way, the GM can't do x because system or built-in constraint (a players move/feature says thing n happens; GM doesn't get to ignore it or erect a block that negates it) says so. The player can't do y because system or built-in constraint (the GM has erected an obstacle that requires overcoming a certain fictional positioning - say reach advantage by the obstacle - before the player can close to melee...the player doesn't just get to ignore that and close to melee).

I would say "participant choice" is different than "authorial choice" because when you're writing a book, you don't have competing interests and system architecture that both constrains possible fiction and mediates outcomes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to go with a loose example that doesn't use any specific system, just for the sake of discussion.

If I give my character a flaw that he struggles with deep and unfathomable anger, then having mechanics that pull that forth as a focus of play.....will he give in to his anger or can he overcome it.....means that the actual gameplay is determining the outcome. The gameplay is about whether my character succeeds or fails to control his anger.

This, to me, seems like the kind of play that is character driven, more so than a player simply deciding on characterization of his character based on the fictional elements of the game.

There are also three ways of handling this I'm aware of; the D&D way, the GURPS way, and the Fate way. That's the order they appeared in the gaming community in and the games I believe represent the styles. It's also IMO worst to best.

In D&D if I have a character who struggles with unfathomable anger that's entirely a player choice. And if I do something with this flaw it's because I the player have decided to, and have decided to do something that's inimical to the interests of the wider group. By roleplaying this I am being anti-social and sabotaging the rest of the group while showboating. (@Manbearcat would call this the player having their say, above)

In GURPS if I struggle with unfathomable anger I got points for taking that as a disadvantage. When it occurs it's because the dice told me it did - I'm not in control of my character while this happens (so I'm genuinely struggling) and it's the fault of the dice rather than something I've decided to do despite its impacts on group cohesion. So I'm not being anti-social out of character playing it. But it's not something I struggle with so much as am subject to. (@Manbearcat above called this the system having its say)

In Fate if I struggle with unfathomable anger this means I am tempted by it. I wrote that on my character sheet, probably as my Trouble aspect. And when it comes up the GM offers me a Fate Point. Which I may accept to get unfathomably angry, or I may spend a Fate Point of my own to turn it down by actually keeping my head, but I've used my willpower to struggle to do it (represented by the Fate point). Neither choice is anti-social by me as a player - either I have more Fate Points to spend when the rubber meets the road or I keep my head and don't cause trouble. I'm tempted - but can struggle to resist. The GM had their say by offering me the Fate Point, the system and setting tell me what it's worth (one Fate Point), but ultimately the decision is mine - and there is a cost and a benefit either way both for me and for the group as a whole. (This is probably the clearest example of @Manbearcat 's "Player has their say, option b" and I'd break it out into a category of its own like "Everyone has their say" - player, GM, and system alike feeding in but it's the player's decision)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*