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

[hawkeyefan]

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​

Not that 3.x D&D is the best example of it, but I think the ability for a PC to influence a NPC where the outcome is determined by a roll is a pretty big part of what we’re talking about, as well.

I don't really think that “act it out to the best of your ability and I as GM will decide” is all that great an approach.

I like when the GM is involved in the factors at play...the NPCs starting attitude, for example....and then the resolution is left up to the roll. The roll is what determines how well the PC performed, how diplomatic or persuasive or deceptive they were, and therefore the outcome.

This puts all the GM’s judgment into establishing the situation and the chances before hand, and then leaves the outcome to the roll. I prefer that to a GM interpreting a roll or in the absence of a roll, interpreting the quality of the player’s attempt, and then deciding the outcome.

The GM deciding the outcome is probably the most relevant bit. Many will be fine with that. Others won’t.

 

[pemerton]

prep, which is a version of Force

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.

I don't know if hawkeyefan had in mind, as one of the certain instances, GM preparation.

I don't think preparation must equate to (to quote @Manbearcat) 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.

Apocalypse World, for instance, relies on GM prep. But (provided the GM MC follows the relevant instruction) it doesn't involve GM force in the above sense.

Obviously Manbearcat can speak for himself (when he has a chance to get back to this thread), but mainly when I think of GM force I think of ignoring/overriding the action resolution mechanics and of establishing consequences, and hence future framings, in disregard of what the players took themselves to have staked in action resolution.

The second conjunct there is more subtle than the first. It seems to me a good chunk of the AW instructions to the MC are various ways of avoiding it (eg lead with your soft moves before following up with your hard ones). Burning Wheel makes a very big deal of it. A GM who preps plot is on his/her way to doing it, but prepping plot isn't the only sort of prep.

That said, maybe @Ovinomancer was using "prep" as a shorthand for prepping plot, as per the example in his follow-up post?

 

[pemerton]

Not that 3.x D&D is the best example of it, but I think the ability for a PC to influence a NPC where the outcome is determined by a roll is a pretty big part of what we’re talking about, as well.

Sure. I was just querying @Lanefan's suggestion that 3E D&D is a system which has specific rules to determine what the PC does. I don't think that suggestion is correct.

I don't really think that “act it out to the best of your ability and I as GM will decide” is all that great an approach.

I tend to think it's terrible.

I agree with this from upthread:

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.

I like when the GM is involved in the factors at play...the NPCs starting attitude, for example....and then the resolution is left up to the roll. The roll is what determines how well the PC performed, how diplomatic or persuasive or deceptive they were, and therefore the outcome.

This puts all the GM’s judgment into establishing the situation and the chances before hand, and then leaves the outcome to the roll.

I tend not to use "starting attitude" as big factor in social resolution, unless there is already some established fiction that so-and-so is friendly to, or hostile to, the PC in question. If such a thing is established, then it becomes a relevant modifier (eg a penalty in Traveller, a DC-adjuster in 4e or Burning Wheel, a mod to the dice pool in Prince Valiant, etc).

The player declares their action, which normally consists in saying (or perhaps paraphrasing) what their PC says. This will establish the parameters for consequences of success or failure. It might also affect the difficulty (eg if it's a big ask) or grant a bonus (Traveller doesn't have so much room for this, but BW, 4e D&D and Prince Valiant all have room for some sort of add resulting from an impassioned performance).

Then the dice are rolled and the outcome determined via the appropriate system method. (Eg in Traveller there's a look-up table for NPC reactions; other systems might be more about GM narration of fiction-appropriate consequences that reflect either success or failure.)

Nothing too radical there I don't think!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't know if hawkeyefan had in mind, as one of the certain instances, GM preparation.

I don't think preparation must equate to (to quote @Manbearcat) 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.

Apocalypse World, for instance, relies on GM prep. But (provided the GM MC follows the relevant instruction) it doesn't involve GM force in the above sense.

Obviously Manbearcat can speak for himself (when he has a chance to get back to this thread), but mainly when I think of GM force I think of ignoring/overriding the action resolution mechanics and of establishing consequences, and hence future framings, in disregard of what the players took themselves to have staked in action resolution.

The second conjunct there is more subtle than the first. It seems to me a good chunk of the AW instructions to the MC are various ways of avoiding it (eg lead with your soft moves before following up with your hard ones). Burning Wheel makes a very big deal of it. A GM who preps plot is on his/her way to doing it, but prepping plot isn't the only sort of prep.

That said, maybe @Ovinomancer was using "prep" as a shorthand for prepping plot, as per the example in his follow-up post?

No, and the fuller context of what I said should help make this clearer. I was talking about the act of pushing prepped material to the fore, ie, making whatever was prepped (a dungeon, an encounter, a plot) enter into play regardless of any other concern, or failing to provide any other material (as in a sandbox outside of the prepped material). That is what I was talking about, the use of prepared material ("prep") in a Forceful way.

You can prepare things and not use Force, but that's less common in D&D, which was the example I was presenting. Yes, I'm aware of old school dungeon crawls -- those are not the current majority of play. I think looking to the material offered for sale is the better way to judge trends in what's popular in play, and those are currently full of Force in regards to D&D.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know if hawkeyefan had in mind, as one of the certain instances, GM preparation.

I don't think preparation must equate to (to quote @Manbearcat) 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.

I was thinking of prep and similar GM input. My 5E game has a lot of threads, but the primary one is based on the scenarios that I’ve introduced to the game.

My players don’t mind if I craft hooks that largely determine the thrust of the game. Largely because I’ve based it on things that they’ve indicated they enjoy, but still....they accept that.

However, if I resorted to Force to dictate how they engage the hooks, or to change the outcome of something, they’d balk at that for sure.

Sure. I was just querying @Lanefan's suggestion that 3E D&D is a system which has specific rules to determine what the PC does. I don't think that suggestion is correct.

No, not really. Nothing beyond the ones that have always been present such as Charm Person and the like.

I tend to think it's terrible.

I had a feeling you might!

I agree with this from upthread:

Yeah, @prabe made a good point there. The absence of mechanics can definitely feel like GM Force. Hard to say if it just feels that way, though.

I tend not to use "starting attitude" as big factor in social resolution, unless there is already some established fiction that so-and-so is friendly to, or hostile to, the PC in question. If such a thing is established, then it becomes a relevant modifier (eg a penalty in Traveller, a DC-adjuster in 4e or Burning Wheel, a mod to the dice pool in Prince Valiant, etc).

I only used starting attitude as an example because I think that’s the most relevant factor in the 3.x system.

The player declares their action, which normally consists in saying (or perhaps paraphrasing) what their PC says. This will establish the parameters for consequences of success or failure. It might also affect the difficulty (eg if it's a big ask) or grant a bonus (Traveller doesn't have so much room for this, but BW, 4e D&D and Prince Valiant all have room for some sort of add resulting from an impassioned performance).

Then the dice are rolled and the outcome determined via the appropriate system method. (Eg in Traveller there's a look-up table for NPC reactions; other systems might be more about GM narration of fiction-appropriate consequences that reflect either success or failure.)

Nothing too radical there I don't think!

No, not at all.

Blades in the Dark follows this scheme. The player declares their characters goal for the action, the GM determines the Position (difficulty) and the Effect (degree of outcome). the player therefore has a strong sense of the chances for success, the degree of success, and the degree of potential consequences. Then the roll determines success, partial success, or failure.

 

[pemerton]

Blades in the Dark follows this scheme. The player declares their characters goal for the action, the GM determines the Position (difficulty) and the Effect (degree of outcome). the player therefore has a strong sense of the chances for success, the degree of success, and the degree of potential consequences. Then the roll determines success, partial success, or failure.

Is position comparable to starting attitude? Or a more gestalt thing?

(My understanding is that in BitD degree/severity of consequence is a function of position and effect.)

 

[prabe]

Yeah, @prabeade a good point there. The absence of mechanics can definitely feel like GM Force. Hard to say if it just feels that way, though.

@hawkeyefan I think you were the one who mentioned something about a "principled GM" which seems as though it would correlate to what I talk about when I talk about trusting a GM. I mention this because if you trust your GM, I think maybe the GM's judgment wouldn't feel so much like (might not be) Force.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Is position comparable to starting attitude? Or a more gestalt thing?

(My understanding is that in BitD degree/severity of consequence is a function of position and effect.)

More gestalt, really. It probably includes or encompasses starting attitude in a social action of some kind. The GM determines the Position as Controlled, Risky, or Desperate depending on the fictional circumstances.

Without getting too deep into the Blades mechanics, here's a quick summary:

• Convincing a friend to help you with something would likely be a Controlled roll
• Convincing someone you just met to help you would likely be a Risky roll
• Convincing someone who dislikes you to help you would likely be a Desperate roll

There's a little more to it, but I think this gives the gist. Position gives you an idea of how tough an action may be. Effect gives you an idea of the outcome (three options Great, Standard, or Limited) and is similarly determined.

So anytime you're about to make a roll, the GM gives you both Position and Effect, and combined they determine the severity of consequences on a failure, or the strength of benefits on a success.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan I think you were the one who mentioned something about a "principled GM" which seems as though it would correlate to what I talk about when I talk about trusting a GM. I mention this because if you trust your GM, I think maybe the GM's judgment wouldn't feel so much like (might not be) Force.

I think if GM Force is a possibility....which in many games it is....then the question becomes when and how it's used. I think that in such games, trusting the GM to only use it in a principled way is a huge part of what can make such a game work or not for those players.

I don't mind if the GM has a specific idea in mind for how he wants play to go. If he has the idea of "an adventure" in mind. I'm generally as okay with that as I might be with him selecting a setting or rules system when we decide to play a game.

But I want to be able to engage with that adventure however I want to. Within reason, I suppose, but I'd kind of expect a good deal of leeway. Certainly more than most "adventure path" type adventures typically allow.

I recently played in a game that was very much of the adventure path sort, and I had my character ask a question, and the GM said to me "so what you're asking is...." and reframed my question to match one of the "if the players ask this...." tidbits in the book. I really, really hated that.

 

[prabe]

I think if GM Force is a possibility....which in many games it is....then the question becomes when and how it's used. I think that in such games, trusting the GM to only use it in a principled way is a huge part of what can make such a game work or not for those players.

I don't mind if the GM has a specific idea in mind for how he wants play to go. If he has the idea of "an adventure" in mind. I'm generally as okay with that as I might be with him selecting a setting or rules system when we decide to play a game.

But I want to be able to engage with that adventure however I want to. Within reason, I suppose, but I'd kind of expect a good deal of leeway. Certainly more than most "adventure path" type adventures typically allow.

I recently played in a game that was very much of the adventure path sort, and I had my character ask a question, and the GM said to me "so what you're asking is...." and reframed my question to match one of the "if the players ask this...." tidbits in the book. I really, really hated that.

One of my gaming groups tends to do Adventure Paths, and I hate them (the adventures; I love the people). There's nothing to engage with but the grind toward the Big Climax. I never conceive of the character as anything other than a bundle of mechanics. I don't care if we succeed at the Final Boss Fight. I actually kinda hope we don't, because I don't think the world in the Adventure Path is worth saving.

I believe we are very much on the same page here, possibly the same paragraph.