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

[prabe]

I'm not one of the people you've been volleying with, about this, but:

I'm willing to agree with your description of GM Force, and I (maybe only now, with an example, because sometimes I am slow) understand your use of "degenerate" in this context.

I think GM Force is a thing that happens. I think some rule sets encourage it more than others, and some (maybe? plausibly?) demand it.

I think it's possible to argue that not having a way in the mechanics to determine the outcome of social interactions, or the timing (I guess) of when character flaws (or Troubles, or Vices, or whatever) come into play can feel like GM Force.

Without getting too hung up on the word, if GM Force feels like cheating at a given table (or even to a given player) there's a reasonable case to be made that in that case it is cheating, regardless of GM intent.

Looking at my previous thought, I'm thinking it's possible for different players at the same table to be in different STATEs (as you call them). I'm also thinking that there may be a continuum of STATE states (heh, heh) at least in the amount of Force that people or groups in the middle expect to be used. There's a difference between not wanting stupid/pointless character deaths and not allowing character deaths at all, but those could both plausibly be in STATE 2.

I'm not feeling particularly coherent about this, so I'll stop now.

 

[Ovinomancer]

<snip>

You can correct me if I'm wrong here @Ovinomancer , but it seems that your position is that all of the following are true:

* The impact on the trajectory of play (the present and future gamestate) of a GM who uses Force is continuum-based.

* The impact on the psychology of the table (regarding newly defined authority distribution post-Force) is also continuum-based.

Is that correct?

Yes to both. I'll elaborate further, but I wanted to go ahead and break in and answer these questions.

Let me interject here (interject...with...myseeeeeeeeeeeeeelf?).

Like the conversation about about "degenerating into murderhoboing", the conversation about Force has to entail 3 table states when it comes to expectations and psychological ramifications:

STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force. Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force. They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.

STATE 2 - These players EXPECT Force to be used. They want the GM to hit the "Force accelerator" as need be to ensure that the story told at the table is compelling in the way they want it to be compelling.

STATE 3 - These players abhor Force. They expect it to never be used. They want player-facing rules that work sans-Force and clearly delineated authority distribution and transparent GMing.

To be clear, when I'm having these conversations, its STATE 3, that I'm talking about. There is no purpose in talking about STATE 1 or STATE 2. Those tables probably exist in much higher proportion than 3, but when it comes to Force, they're agnostic or supportive...so talking about Force's effect on play for their table psychology is irrelevant (in the same way that play doesn't "degenerate" into murderhobo play when the players are agnostic and/or want/expect it).

I disagree that your states are comprehensive, and, in fact, miss the position I'm staking. There's a position that juxtaposes all three states, in that I may not care about Force in one aspect of a game, expect it in another, and be very upset about it in a third. I honestly think this is a place that D&D occupies: Force is expected due to prep concerns -- ie, the GM is largely expected to Force the prep to the forefront of the game and/or only present prepared items (ie, there's no real game outside of prep, which is a version of Force). Force is aberrant in regards to character, though, as this is the sole proprietorship of the player. And, Force may be not cared about in regards to other aspects of play.

So, no, I don't fully agree that Force is a binary on-or-off thing, as it can be applied to different areas of the game independently.

That said, if the table expectation is no Force, then, yes, it's a binary issue.

To relate my experience, at a high level, I was playing in a 3.x game. The premise of the game was that Force was involved -- it centered around a prophecy. However, there were large chunks of the game that revolved around the characters solely. The GM was experienced in a number of different games and did an excellent job of having a plotted game but having enough "slop" to add in character driven side-arcs. He, in effect, ran a hybrid game -- half plotted and full of force and the other half (outside of the clearly defined plotted elements) open to player direction and focusing on character arcs. It was, as I noted, a perfect storm of events that resulted in finding things out about my character that I didn't know, or initially thought differently. So, in this game, there was clearly Force (the plotted elements aligned with a prophecy), but not in all areas. My tolerance for Force is higher than others (but not infinite by any imagination) so I could accept (and did, in session zero) Force in agreed areas. This ad hoc arrangement worked very well and delivered character arcs not just for me but for most of the other players (we had two players uninterested in arcs, and so did not have one).

Fundamentally, I think the difference here is that I see character arcs existing in a game that isn't entirely focused on delivering that play whereas you're discussion play entirely focused on character. I'll agree with you that, in the latter case, Force in any amount is detrimental to the premise of the game. I'll disagree, though, in that I assert character arcs can exist outside of a game focused on character, and those games may have Force.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ovinomancer

I don't have a ton of time right now, so if you're able to respond to this, I won't get a look at until afterwhile.

Two things:

1) I think something has gone slightly awry (I don't know where this happened, if I was involved with it or not). We're mashing together two different things:

a) Character Arcs - A journey of a character that involves an inciting incident > conflict/obstacles > victory/setback/fall > resolution and transformation of the character.

b) (Substantively) Character-Driven Play (lead post premise) - The players, through advocating for their characters (both through the machinery of system and their related expression of character ethos/pathos), drive the fiction through a perpetual series of gamestates, until all thematic questions have been answered (and the the game ends).

These are different things.

I absolutely, 100 % agree in all ways that Character Arcs can emerge in games laden with (even fraught with) Force. Force is absolutely zero barrier to Character Arcs. The only thing that matters is that the journey above happens...doesn't matter how agency is distributed.

The question I'm posing is how Force interacts with (b) above.

So I guess my question with respect to your play anecdote above would be:

Through the medium of their character, would a player have the capability (both authority and means to declare actions and not have that input nullified by GM) to challenge the conception of that prophecy and either undo its ability to become manifest and/or undo its revelation ?

 

[Lanefan]

Because many of us realize that the agency you claim is in older games is often an illusion in the game as played. If one accepts Gygax Rule 0 (The GM is always right, and can mod rules on a whim), your agency ends wherever the GM decides, including the potential of telling you how your character feels about something!

The GM I had the least agency as a player under was running AD&D 2E. Second worst was AD&D 1E.

Which then - again - places the onus on the GM to get out of the way and give the characters (players) time and space to do what they're doing.

Gygax Rule 0 is, IME, mostly for resolving rules/rulings arguments: ultimately the GM has the hammer.

D&D game rules prior to 3E explicitly give the GM the power to change the rules on the fly for pretty much any reason. Sane DM's don't... they pick a subset, superset, or superset of a subset of the rules, and stick to them, because player agency requires knowing enough to make informed decisions, and a GM willing to let the player have some.

Within any given campaign I largely try to keep the rules consistent, with major changes (mostly) coming between campaigns. That said, if something develops within a campaign that needs attention (usually involving someone finding either a major typo, an outright error, or a game-wrecking loophole) I'll fix it right away.

That said, I have very few rules or guidelines* governing social interaction anyway, which is mostly what we've been discussing.

* - most of what I have are to do with treatment of henches, and possible results/consequences therefrom; but even there if the hench-in-character would for whatever reason react differently than the guidelines suggest then that's what it's gonna do.

The other thing is that most of the more narrativist games do is explicitly deny revision on the fly from GM prerogatives... many Fate flavors are pretty clear that only the group as a whole gets to change rules.

In the right group this is cool. My experience is that, given the chance, players will tend towards favouring changes that help their PCs (individually or collectively) while pushing back against any changes that hamper the PCs, which is only natural.

What a ruleset cannot do is force the GM to follow it, but I know that I'd rather not play if the GM isn't using a cogent and clear set of rules.

Yeah - a GM who generally doesn't follow her own rules doesn't work well for me either.

Which comes back, in a way, to the drum I often bang regarding PCs and NPCs functioning mechanically the same within the setting: it's way easier as a player to extrapolate the mechanics I already know regarding PCs onto the NPCs than it is to have to learn two disparate sets of mechanics - one for PCs and the other for NPCs* - and therefore it's on the GM to ensure consistency here even if the RAW say or suggest otherwise.

* - assuming NPC mechanics are player-side info in that system; otherwise there's no way of knowing what rules the GM is following if any.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

I don't have a ton of time right now, so if you're able to respond to this, I won't get a look at until afterwhile.

Two things:

1) I think something has gone slightly awry (I don't know where this happened, if I was involved with it or not). We're mashing together two different things:

a) Character Arcs - A journey of a character that involves an inciting incident > conflict/obstacles > victory/setback/fall > resolution and transformation of the character.

b) (Substantively) Character-Driven Play (lead post premise) - The players, through advocating for their characters (both through the machinery of system and their related expression of character ethos/pathos), drive the fiction through a perpetual series of gamestates, until all thematic questions have been answered (and the the game ends).

These are different things.

I absolutely, 100 % agree in all ways that Character Arcs can emerge in games laden with (even fraught with) Force. Force is absolutely zero barrier to Character Arcs. The only thing that matters is that the journey above happens...doesn't matter how agency is distributed.

The question I'm posing is how Force interacts with (b) above.

So I guess my question with respect to your play anecdote above would be:

Through the medium of their character, would a player have the capability (both authority and means to declare actions and not have that input nullified by GM) to challenge the conception of that prophecy and either undo its ability to become manifest and/or undo its revelation ?

No prob, get back when you can.

I don't think we're on the same page about character arcs, though. I'm not prepared to agree with your summation about character arcs being present even if the player has little to no input vice all or almost all of the input. I think you've noted that we're in a terminology/concept ambiguity, and that's making things difficult to discuss.

As for "character-driven" play, as I understand, we're largely in agreement. I think that there can be a small amount of Force and still have good play, though, else GMs could not accidentally put undue pressure on a sitch and Force an outcome through inexperience or inattention. Character-driven play is very intensive in the moment, and if such mistakes are not survivable, then we're in a bad spot! That said, Force should be avoided and play should aim to eliminate it entirely as a matter of principle.

On "character arcs", I'm trying to discuss the means by which a character undergoes change in play that may be surprising to the player -- the character at risk moment. This is what I read the OP as driving for and this is different from how I read your formulation of character arcs above in that it is play that engages the character and allows all involved to find out what that means. This is similar to character-driven, in that the results shouldn't be predetermined but played through, but can exist outside of a character-driven game. I'm not ready to agree that a character arc in the context of the OP can be entirely Forced by the GM and remain what the OP is trying to seek. I also don't think that you must be in a character-driven system/game to find what the OP is trying to seek. I think you can have meaningful, non-Forced character arcs in a game that has Force in other aspects. I don't think reducing character arcs to their fiction counterpart (created by a single author according to their decisions from outside the character) is useful in the context of the thread.

 

[Lanefan]

Like the conversation about about "degenerating into murderhoboing", the conversation about Force has to entail 3 table states when it comes to expectations and psychological ramifications:

STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force. Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force. They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.

STATE 2 - These players EXPECT Force to be used. They want the GM to hit the "Force accelerator" as need be to ensure that the story told at the table is compelling in the way they want it to be compelling.

STATE 3 - These players abhor Force. They expect it to never be used. They want player-facing rules that work sans-Force and clearly delineated authority distribution and transparent GMing.

To be clear, when I'm having these conversations, its STATE 3, that I'm talking about. There is no purpose in talking about STATE 1 or STATE 2.

Ah. I'm thinking of all three types as - again - a continuum, while mostly focusing on STATE 1. (good definitions, by the way!)

Why STATE 1? Because it's the most variable, and in some ways most interesting, where STATE 2 and STATE 3 are closer to absolutes.

In STATE 1, even if the players don't care about Force, it's still on the GM to pay at least a little attention to what she's doing Force-wise; as if she overdoes it there may suddenly come a flashpoint where those players find they DO care. Result: arguments all round.

I also think character-driven and-or character-based play is quite possible in STATE 1 provided the GM lets it happen. Personally I think it's a GM mistake to not let it happen, others' views may differ.

Murderhobo play is possible in all three states.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.

STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force. Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force. They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.

STATE 2 - These players EXPECT Force to be used. They want the GM to hit the "Force accelerator" as need be to ensure that the story told at the table is compelling in the way they want it to be compelling.

STATE 3 - These players abhor Force. They expect it to never be used. They want player-facing rules that work sans-Force and clearly delineated authority distribution and transparent GMing.

I snipped your post down to what I feel are the essential bits.

I feel that there’s another state, one that has elements of more than one of the others. This is one where the players are accepting of Force applied in certain instances, but not in others.

You mention in the bolded part above that Force can nullify or perhaps just modify player input. This implies that some application of Force is worse than others.

Some players may be okay with more minor usage, or usage in certain areas but not in others. Or perhaps you have a group whose opinion on Force is not shared.

 

[pemerton]

Also .... @pemerton - I forgot to ask you how your Dying Earth RPG campaign went.

We haven't come back to it - it was just me and two players, so if we have a session with just the three of us it might be revived.

After you mentioned it, I went ahead and grabbed it and ran it for a little while.

It's nice to hear that I can be a force for good.

It seemed a little more ... comedic ... than the games I normally associate with you.

It's not quite Burning Wheel.

 

[pemerton]

It's secret until the players find out about it.

In that case the "secret" is redundant - necessarily stuff the players don't know is not known by them (ie secret from them).

 

[pemerton]

Social mechanics in 3e D&D (and 3.5, and PF, and games based on those), the existence of which mechanics in my view make them A-type systems, can and do trample the aspect of player agency that has to do with - absent external control mechanics - playing one's character as one sees fit. The rub here is that the game doesn't really make this clear until you're already into it.

This is an odd example, because there are no GM-to-player or player-to-player social mechanics in those systems.

I haven't dug up my copy of the 3E PHB, but this is from the online 3.5 SRD:

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check​