a player in a D&D game can have a detailed backstory and another could not have anything at all and just 'wing it,' but this really isn't the concept being discussed. In both of these cases, the player is still the absolutely stakeholder in the character and it will be exactly as they say. MBC is driving more to contrast this with situations where the player isn't the absolute stakeholder, but perhaps, at best, the majority stakeholder -- they usually get the say about the character, but other things like other players or the system also have input that must be acknowledged. This is not saying the same thing as the player gets to decide how the character reacts to events (absolute shareholder) but rather that sometimes the player does not get this say and has to reconcile those results with the character being played. The LoU example where the character suddenly finds they cannot go through with the plan due is such an issue -- the player is not making this choice, the system did, and now the player has to accommodate that within the character.
I want to build a bit on what I've quoted, and maybe in doing so will provide some responses to
@Manbearcat's questions.
First, a big picture point: sometimes when we talk about
player-driven RPGing there is a tendency for the discussion to turn into one about (so-called) "narrative" mechanics like (eg) the ability of players to author elements of setting or backstory that are distinct from the causal consequences of action declarations for their PCs. I find that turn in the discussion almost uniformly unhelpful, because it substitutes discussion of one technique which is found in some games (eg Marvel Heroic RPG, to an extent Burning Wheel) but not others (eg there's very little of it in Apocalypse World) for discussion of the more fundamental issue, about the roles of the participants and the priorities of play.
Somewhat similarly, I think it risks distraction if a discussion about
who controls the conception of the character turns into simply a discussion about mechanical techniques. Some RPGs have techniques that allow another player to declare actions for a PC - eg domination effects in D&D - and others don't - eg Burning Wheel (in BW, the closest spell to domination - Force of Will - forces a player to rewrite one Belief of his/her PC, but does not allow anyone else to declare actions for the PC). Some have rules that constrain what actions can be declared that flow from "non-rational" manifestations of PC beliefs/personality (eg the Traits and Passions in Pendragon; resistances to temptation in The Dying Earth; morale rules in Classic Traveller and the somewhat similar Steel rules in Burning Wheel) and others don't (eg 4e D&D). Some have rules that allow PCs to be persuaded in some or other fashion which then creates limits on the player's action declarations (eg Duels of Wits in Burning Wheel; the social resolution framework of The Dying Earth) while others don't (eg in MHRP a PC can suffer persuasion-type debuffs that apply to any action that departs from what the persuader wants the character to do, but the player always gets to choose their PC's action unless the PC is actually "stressed out" by the debuff). And some RPGs have build elements that (i) express PC traits/inclinations and that (ii) can be imposed by other game participants (eg Burning Wheel uses Traits for this purpose, and Traits can be gained or lost via the whole-of-table Trait Vote process)) while many don't have anything like this.
But even a very mechanically "vanilla" game can be played in a way that is closer to
player as majority than
player as absolute shareholder. Mechanical techniques can help, but they won't work - they will just be sources of friction - if the fundamental orientation is not already there.
To try and elaborate on the previous paragraph, and to start to provide some answers to
@Manbearcat's questions, let's think about a concrete example. A player is playing a character who has, as a bit of backstory and nominated personality,
I love my family. We can imagine the player has written up some family-related backstory; that as part of the portrayal of their PC, the player talks often about "ma and pa" and the lessons learned from them; expresses longing to return home and see them; etc. (In fantasy fiction I think Sam Gamgee would be an easy example for the player of this character to keep in mind as a character model.)
Now, suppose we're 6 months into the campaign, and the PCs have been raiding dungeons and rescuing prisoners and earning XP and gaining levels. And our imagined player once again makes some reference to missing the family back home. Is it fair game, or a low blow, for someone else at the table to respond
Well, if you miss them so much, what are you doing still hanging out with us?
I don't think there is any single answer to my question, as to whether or not the italicised response is fair game or a low blow. Everything depends on expectations of play. If the game is mainstream D&D of some form or other, then I think the response is either a low blow or (perhaps that should be
and) a type of breaking of the fourth wall. Because - as per my posts upthread - mainstream D&D depends on keeping the portrayal of character under strong constraints. And so there are only two basic alternatives: every PC is someone with no bonds beyond those forged among the party or in the moment of interaction with a NPC (this can range from amoral, asocial mercenaries to Shane- or Conan-esque rootless wanderers); or the PCs cover a wider spectrum of humanity (including, maybe, Sam Gamgee) but we deliberately avoid interrogating why it is that their day-to-day behaviour and priorities seems inconsistent with their notional social and emotional commitments. That's why I refer to a breaking of the fourth wall: because asking
Well, if you miss them so much, what are you doing still hanging out with us? is in effect drawing attention to the game play conceits that mean that all expressions of character have to be subordinated to other priorities.
This is consistent with the player being the
absolute shareholder in that sort of game. Behaviours - ranging from mind control, to expedient choices made to avoid "suboptimality", to the failure to return to the family one constantly misses - that seem at odds with professed character are politely ignored, or the dots aren't joined, and the player is allowed to keep expressing his/her conception of his/her PC sincerely but with the degree of muting appropriate to this sort of RPGing.
(There's a resemblance here to some serial fiction - some comics, some TV shows - where no matter how much drama or trauma or hardship a character goes through, they still play the role of
loyal sidekick or
plucky underdog or
comic relief or
person who reminds us about how much family matters no matter how disconnected that is from any realistic assessment of the character's actions and choices and circumstances.)
Contrast with the above where the response
is fair game. Or where, every time the player makes a choice for his/her PC that increases the distance (geographic, emotional, experiential) from family the GM is allowed or even expected to ask
OK, so are you really still committed to your family? Where it's considered acceptable for a GM, or another player, to ask how being mind controlled changed the character. Or whether, having run away at a crucial moment (say due to a failed morale or Steel check) the PC can still look at themself in the mirror.
That's a game in which the player is not absolute shareholder. Other participants are expected to engage with the interplay of PC and situation, and to ask questions and express opinions about how the PC has changed; and the player of the PC is expected to suck that up and even take it on board! But the flipside to this being fair is that the player must have the space to explore and express the character s/he wants to play. That means a change in understandings of participant roles from mainstream D&D.
This sort of non-absolute approach to player control over the character can be serious - which is how my group approached it playing Rolemaster and how we approach it in BW. It can be more lighthearted or 4-colour, as in our 4e D&D play, or even completely zany as in The Dying Earth. But in all cases I think it requires abandoning a conception of play where the notion of "suboptimal" action declaration has purchase.
