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

[prabe]

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

Thanks for answering it seriously.

I have no issues with your descriptions of agency types, so I'll move on ...

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.

That's reasonable. I guess I was thinking about corroborative/cooperative authorship, or possibly playing in a band (I've done both). The player is the author of his character, using the game system at the table (I mean, it's no use to bring a FATE character to a D&D game, or vice versa, right?). The entire table is generating a story (or a story is emerging from the entire table playing a game), and the player is directly responsible for a portion of it, centered on one character. I'm thinking this through more or less right now, but I guess I'm at a point where Player's authorship of Character is absolute, within the rules of the game, until/unless it interferes with another Player's authorship. The GM has (mostly) authorship of the world/setting, and I'm not entirely sure where the boundaries are between that and Player authorship (or, I'm not sure I can elucidate them; I think I have a decent nonverbal feel for them, though).

I'm not sure I've answered your question about constraints and bindings on authorship rights.

 

[prabe]

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.

Snipping your descriptions for space, not as dismissal.

I don't think that a D&D character written up as "struggling with unfathomable anger" needs to be played in a way that disrupts the group, or persistently interferes with their goals. I've played such a character (in a game that was about on this level, on this axis), and it was neither anti-social nor showboating. Obviously different tables are different.

I've also played games that had disadvantages in character creation. As I think about it, I realize those don't bother me much, probably because they're pretty concrete. You have [chance] for [bad thing] if [condition]. You've received build points in exchange for taking that disadvantage (or however the mechanic works). Presumably you've had a talk with the GM before starting the game about what that disadvantage means and how it works, and it won't really interrupt the flow of the game if/when it comes up.

I've played FATE. I think I like it least, because it's ... not concrete. Your aspect is probably plain-language, so it's probably imprecise, at least around the edges, and your GM is kinda obligated to try to find ways to bring that to bear against your character in some way or other. The mechanics for that feel to me very much like a combination of bribery and extortion, and because the GM is going to be using the limited number of aspects, it seems to me as though there are a limited number of stories where the GM can pass Fate points to you, so you're going to get a lot of stories (in this case) about your unfathomable anger, probably until you have unfathomable anger coming out of your ears.

This isn't to say I disagree with your descriptions, especially not with your correlations to the categories @Manbearcat listed. I think they did a reasonably fair job of capturing the styles.

EDIT: Apologies for the tone in part of this. There were, as @Umbran has said elsewhere, unpleasant things going on my head about the time FATE and I parted ways, and they echo, and I should either avoid the topic or moderate myself better. I'm leaving what I said up, solely so things below make sense.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

Plus ca la meme chose.

Without diacriticals because who has time for that?

Yeah. I think in the end it comes down to GMs and players all operating in good faith. Other than that it's horses for courses.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's a whole thing about constraining the DM/GM. Whether it functions as actual constraint or illusory constraint, whether it works best for good DMs (who wouldn't need it) or bad DMs (who could ignore it), whether it provides great training wheels for inexperienced DMs (in terms of systems cues and constraints) or is even more baffling for them ... it's all a question of preferences.

It seems to go round and round. Some people would say that the "DM Constraint" model was a backlash against the excesses of certain ... darker ... Wolfier.... DM-driven games.

But then, of course, we saw the renewed interest in the games of the 70s and early 80s, especially ones like D&D (Moldvay), OD&D, 1e, retroclones, Traveller, WFRPG, and so on. Which tend to be very, very ... old school in their approach because, um, yeah.

Plus ca change.

Good post, but let me offer a subtle counter.

When GM-constraint is brought up, its often said (I've seen Tony and others speak on this as well) that "good GMs don't need constraint."

Let me just say that I disagree with this. By my sense of things, "good GMs may need constraint THE MOST because (a) they know so much more, (b) have so much more experience (and success), and (c) therefore are likely the most apt to fall prey to reckless hubris and lack of self-awareness of their cognitive blind spots."

I mean, let me just testify. (a), (b), and (c) DEFINITELY apply to me, even though I'm borderline pathological in my introspection. I'm VERY GLAD to have codified system constraints and diffuse authority to protect me and the tables I play with from my "conceptual worse self."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

I've played FATE. I think I like it least, because it's ... not concrete. Your aspect is probably plain-language, so it's probably imprecise, at least around the edges, and your GM is kinda obligated to try to find ways to bring that to bear against your character in some way or other. The mechanics for that feel to me very much like a combination of bribery and extortion

Bribery? Might as well say the GM in D&D is bribing the players with gold, magic items, and XP! Is the GM in D&D bribing you when you get Inspiration for playing to your Ideals, Bonds, of Flaws?

Extortion? The problem with extortion is that it isn't consensual.

In Fate... you make up the Aspects. You're setting allowed places where the GM has a hook to play with. And, you can negotiate about using that hook each time!

...and because the GM is going to be using the limited number of aspects

In Spirit of the Century, you have 10 Aspects - not a very limited number. In Fate Core, you have 5.

In either case, the Aspects are pretty central to who the character is. You think who your character is shouldn't come up very often?

...it seems to me as though there are a limited number of stories where the GM can pass Fate points to you, so you're going to get a lot of stories (in this case) about your unfathomable anger, probably until you have unfathomable anger coming out of your ears.

Your Barbarian rages at least once every game in which there's a combat, right?

I think there's huge misconception about Aspects, too. YOu guys focus all on how, "OMG, the GM can make yoru life difficult for you using an Aspect!!!1!"

First off, realize - in D&D, the GM can make life difficult for you any time they want - "Whoops! A whole bunch of kobolds! Oh no!". At least in Fate, you get something for it, and it'll be thematically appropriate for the character.

Second of all - each and every Aspect is also useful for you. Folks continually seem to forget this.

I was in a Spirit of the Century game, playing a private investigator type. The GM had asked that we not make up any characters that were really gun happy - he didn't want to run a game where the basic solution to problems was a spray of bullets from a tommy gun mowing down bad guys. But, I was playing a noir-ish P.I. Of course his basic weapon was a revolver.

So, I took the Trick Shot stunt (giving a +2 on Guns skill rolls against inanimate objects), and took an Aspect, "I set 'em up, you knock 'em down". With that stunt and Aspect, I could be insanely good at gunplay that created scene aspects that other players could invoke. But, if I wanted to just shoot someone in the face, the GM could give me a Fate point, and have things not work out quite as I intended. And, if I found myself short of Fate Points when going into a big conflict... all I had to do was try to shoot the BBEG, and either it worked, or I got a Fate Point that I could use!

I got to have bullets flying everywhere, being effective as a support character by using a gun, and the GM gets his game not to be a bloodbath. Everyone wins! Way more fun than just having a character who was good at killing people with bullets.

 

[prabe]

@Umbran

I've played FATE, and I've run FATE (specifically Spirit of the Century, in a homebrew collaborative setting) for about a year. I'm not speaking about it from ignorance, and I'm not going to elaborate on my feelings about FATE here, other than to say I probably won't GM it again, but I'm a better DM for having run it.

 

[Umbran]

@Umbran

I've played FATE, and I've run FATE (specifically Spirit of the Century, in a homebrew collaborative setting) for about a year. I'm not speaking about it from ignorance, and I'm not going to elaborate on my feelings about FATE here, other than to say I probably won't GM it again, but I'm a better DM for having run it.

That's fine. I don't mean to compel you to justify your position.

My point stands, however, that the elements I raised about how Aspects are used are pretty consistently passed over, leaving what I feel is a pretty skewed depiction of how the system operates. This doesn't require your response - my point is there for folks to read and take in.

 

[prabe]

That's fine. I don't mean to compel you to justify your position.

My point stands, however, that the elements I raised about how Aspects are used are pretty consistently passed over, leaving what I feel is a pretty skewed depiction of how the system operates. This doesn't require your response - my point is there for folks to read and take in.

No worries. I didn't mean to be attacking anyone's preference for FATE. It probably came across that way, and I apologize if so. It just gets my back up a little when people who prefer FATE act as though someone who doesn't, doesn't know the game.