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

[prabe]

I'd agree with you, and with @TwoSix. I wasn't suggesting that there aren't limitations in place - different systems have all manner of rules, spoken and unspoken that are designed to limit or guide GM judgement. However, what is the case is that judgement on the part of the GM, agency if you will, or force, exists in every game at every table. It's also true that the extent to which a given GM conforms to those rules varies by GM and doesn't necessarily conform to the intent of the rules set. I'd like to get past the ephemeral fantasy of the entirely impartial GM because I think it makes talking about what matters a lot more difficult. What matters is the nature of the limitations on GM judgment, and I would submit that the nature of the judgment and what limitations apply are more a factor of the actual GM then of the rules set in question, however much the choice of system might betray a certain leaning one way or the other when it comes to ideas of force and agency.

I have a thought, which I have explored some but not extensively, that one can tell a lot about how principled a GM is by the constraints he puts on his own behavior. Not exactly how many, but which ones.

Seeing it, it seems kinda lacking, but I did say I haven't explored it much (even my my standards).

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.

BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth

I don't have time to engage in detail or address the threads I left hanging. But I just wanted to address this.

This comes up a lot and I think what is happening here is a fundamental misunderstanding of system and subbing the deeply intertwined, holistic nature of system agenda, principles, and GMing guidance (which yields huge GM constraint) with some level (how unbridled I'm not sure, but its not a significant level of bridling) of "GM discretion/decides."

Upthread, I delineated "Players say", "GM's say", and "System's say."

A significant bulk of what you're invoking above in Blades (and in @Ovinomancer 's example) is "System's say" (in all 3 of (a) how the GM is constrained, (b) the order of operations by which GM judgements must be made to stay in accordance with the rules and ethos of the game, and (c) how player-facing all of this is), not "GM's say". Also, where its not "System's say" its one part "GM's say" and one part the synthesis of the "say" of all 3 (because its all bound by a focused play premise that is "System's say").

I've tried to explain this in many different threads, but it appears to me that its extremely difficult to conceive (particularly if you're steeped in an alternative paradigm) unless you experience running/playing the games (and likely more than once).

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't have time to engage in detail or address the threads I left hanging. But I just wanted to address this.

This comes up a lot and I think what is happening here is a fundamental misunderstanding of system and subbing the deeply intertwined, holistic nature of system agenda, principles, and GMing guidance (which yields huge GM constraint) with some level (how unbridled I'm not sure, but its not a significant level of bridling) of "GM discretion/decides."

Upthread, I delineated "Players say", "GM's say", and "System's say."

A significant bulk of what you're invoking above in Blades (and in @Ovinomancer 's example) is "System's say" (in all 3 of (a) how the GM is constrained, (b) the order of operations by which GM judgements must be made to stay in accordance with the rules and ethos of the game, and (c) how player-facing all of this is), not "GM's say". Also, where its not "System's say" its one part "GM's say" and one part the synthesis of the "say" of all 3 (because its all bound by a focused play premise that is "System's say").

I've tried to explain this in many different threads, but it appears to me that its extremely difficult to conceive (particularly if you're steeped in an alternative paradigm) unless you experience running/playing the games (and likely more than once).

I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.

I hear what you're saying. The idea that the GM will bend the game in order to deliver a more potent dramatic experience is so imbedded in the gaming community at-large that it becomes an unspoken part of most tables' social contract. A GM who follows a game's play agenda exactly might even be viewed as abdicating their responsibility to "make the game better" by following the game's stated play agenda.

It really takes a GM and a group of players who are aware of these play considerations to bring out the best scenarios for these type of games. No amount of "the game works best if you follow this play agenda" direction can correct for a table expectation of "tell us a story."

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.

I think here is what I would say is the overarching profile for "the extent to which the GM conforms to those expectations":

1) How explicitly constraining is the rules text/play premise on the GM?

2) How explicit is the authority distributed in play?

3) Does the system have some equivalent tenet to "play by the rules" and "play to find out" or, conversely, does the system have some equivalent tenet to "the GM should change/alter/disregard the rules at their discretion in order to achieve some sort of storytelling or entertainment imperative?"

4) Is the game particularly codified and player-facing?

5) Does the aggregate of (1), (2), (3) (the first equivalent tenets), and (4) routinely produce the sort of play depicted as a trivial formality of just playing the game?


If 1-4 are answered in a certain way and the answer to 5 is "yes", then I would say that GMs become considerably more apt to conform to those expectations (as in nearing total adherence).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.

I think a big part of this is about the outcome itself. The Pass/Fail state should not be subverted by GM Force. The roll determines success or failure. Sure, the GM then needs to determine the specific results;as you say this is present to varying degree in just about any game....but he doesn't get to decide if you succeed or fail at something (something significant, at least). That's what the dice are for.

I think this is where game mechanics can come into it. In the absence of a rule system to determine success or failure, most games default to "then the GM decides". Whether this is good or not is the question, and of course it's subjective. Earlier in the thread, the topic of social encounters came up, and many advocated that no mechanics were needed for these; the players should simply say what their characters say or do (or paraphrase, at least) to convince the target of their way of thinking. Here, the Success or Failure of this task is entirely in the hands of the GM.

Some folks may be fine with that. Others may not. Still others may be fine with it sometimes or in some games. But I think that in most instances, there's a pretty big difference between this mode of play and one which the success or failure is up to some kind of roll or check, and the form that the success or failure takes is then up to the GM (and even those may have more constraint from game mechanics).

 

[prabe]

Earlier in the thread, the topic of social encounters came up, and many advocated that no mechanics were needed for these; the players should simply say what their characters say or do (or paraphrase, at least) to convince the target of their way of thinking. Here, the Success or Failure of this task is entirely in the hands of the GM.

Some folks may be fine with that. Others may not. Still others may be fine with it sometimes or in some games. But I think that in most instances, there's a pretty big difference between this mode of play and one which the success or failure is up to some kind of roll or check, and the form that the success or failure takes is then up to the GM (and even those may have more constraint from game mechanics).

I think it can work well, which isn't the same thing as saying I think it will work well, and I have a strong preference for at least skills in the category, for reasons.

 

[Fenris-77]

I hear what you're saying. The idea that the GM will bend the game in order to deliver a more potent dramatic experience is so imbedded in the gaming community at-large that it becomes an unspoken part of most tables' social contract. A GM who follows a game's play agenda exactly might even be viewed as abdicating their responsibility to "make the game better" by following the game's stated play agenda.

It really takes a GM and a group of players who are aware of these play considerations to bring out the best scenarios for these type of games. No amount of "the game works best if you follow this play agenda" direction can correct for a table expectation of "tell us a story."

I don't even really think that 'bending the game' is a bad thing in and of itself. As you say, the expectations of the table are a larger determining factor on the idea of acceptability than any grander ideas about GM force. Personally, I think the most important factor is the extent to which the GM and players agree about what's acceptable, and the extent to which both sides abide by that contract, spoken or unspoken, during actual play. What that sets aside is the idea that any variant of GM force can in a vacuum be said to be better or worse than any other. If the level of GM force meets the expectations of the table then it is, by default, good, regardless of what any particular player or GM might prefer about what their individual table looks like.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:

"Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"

There are corner cases, but broadly, I would say the answer to the question becomes:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't provide the desired experience."

But....

What about the case when it does?

Why would a GM use Force then?

 

[prabe]

I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:

"Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"

There are corner cases, but broadly, I would say the answer to the question becomes:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't provide the desired experience."

But....

What about the case when it does?

Why would a GM use Force then?

Seems like the obvious answer is that there's a difference in "the desired game experience." Obvious case is the GM wants one experience, the players want another.

This possibly includes cases where party solves problem before GM got to bring out some marvelously constructed Big Bad Thing, so the GM uses Force to bring out that Big Bad Thing, to show it off. Or maybe this is a different answer.

I wouldn't call a GM who used Force or either of those reasons a GM I'd prefer to play with.