D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Aside: If 4e is locked (mostly) behind the GSL, I'm now wondering how a revised 4e would look if it was hacked onto or around the 5e chassis but with 4e design principles and mechanics...

4e may be 'locked behind the GSL', but you have the SRDs for 3.x, and 5e that are OGL. That covers virtually all of the basic core stuff that is in 4e in some form or other. I mean, sure, it is POSSIBLE WotC might try to object if you literally CLONED 4e, but go read this HoML and while it certainly is unlikely to have come to WotC's attention, my guess is they could care less. I put an OGL on it, so what are they really going to say? Its not like I'm copying 4e powers wholesale, and the class mechanics in my system are actually fairly different from 4e at this point. I mean, I would not consider this game to be 'AEDU' in any strict sense (though if you play it, the effect is pretty close, but I use Power Points instead of 'slots'). Its a D&D-like game, certainly it isn't really any closer to 4e, mechanically, than 13a is, though it should play a LOT more like 4e than 13a does. Obviously you could hew even closer in overall play to 4e if you wanted, but then I just figure there's no point in cloning an existing game that you can easily buy on Amazon or whatever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is little to no "design" in this, and "tools" and "techniques" are going to be extremely difficult to spell out, because they'll ultimately (sort of how AbulAlhazred was talking earlier) just boil down to "GM says." When that is the only structure, "GM says," there's...really nothing to analyze there, and little to be learned. Hence...I don't see much point in analyzing openly anti-systematic games. Peraps there are still tools or techniques that may be relevant, but...it just seems like it's always going to have that phrase that I have come to so greatly dislike over the last ten years or so: "You're the DM, you decide!"

My take is that just because something isn't written down doesn't make it 'not system'. The rules of sports games were surely not written down for 1000's of years, and yet the play of these games was often HIGHLY codified. It was just a set of agreed-upon conventions which formed a complete rules system. Infamously in past centuries disagreements about exactly what the rules were often lead to bloodshed and other unpleasantness, but it was still a game with rules, which is the fundamental definition of 'system' to me.

So, if all the participants in 'FKR' games consistently agree that the referee needs to act in certain ways and invoke certain rules/procedures then THOSE ARE THE SYSTEM. It is OK to say that the referee has leeway to decide as they see fit in more cases, without reference to something written down, as in, say 5e D&D, but its not thus clear that this makes the game less systematic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My take is that just because something isn't written down doesn't make it 'not system'. The rules of sports games were surely not written down for 1000's of years, and yet the play of these games was often HIGHLY codified. It was just a set of agreed-upon conventions which formed a complete rules system. Infamously in past centuries disagreements about exactly what the rules were often lead to bloodshed and other unpleasantness, but it was still a game with rules, which is the fundamental definition of 'system' to me.

So, if all the participants in 'FKR' games consistently agree that the referee needs to act in certain ways and invoke certain rules/procedures then THOSE ARE THE SYSTEM. It is OK to say that the referee has leeway to decide as they see fit in more cases, without reference to something written down, as in, say 5e D&D, but its not thus clear that this makes the game less systematic.

That seems a rather large "if" however.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here I meant only that FKR is not the only kind of freeform RPG. It's probably the kind most written about.

The magic circle of play is a concept in game studies. On entering it, players suspend disbelief etc, adopt lusory attitudes, all that stuff.

We can have rules that establish roles, division of authority, game world and so on, but that are left on the border of the magic circle. Within the circle they will contextualise our freeform, but no system is used (e.g. no resolution system). My thought is it counts well enough within designed, but is it excluded from any category in the proposed taxonomy?

I don't really get what this is saying. I mean, we play RPGs, and I've played 1000's upon 1000's of sessions, and there's always been some process and rules. Some games may be more free form in terms of specifying less than others, but whatever the procedures, process, principles, and rules of play are, they are governing. When combat starts you do certain things. Sure, there's an attitude of suspension of disbelief and (possibly, not in all RPGs) taking up of 'character stance' and RP. That doesn't ignore the game elements though! You don't go into some mystical 'circle' where people stop playing and just tell a story. No, when in HoML a player describes their character's intent to accomplish something, and then proposes the means by which it will happen, a specific section of the rules is invoked! The GM will say "OK, hmmm, that seems like Surviving is the governing mode, use your Survival knack!" and then the player does their part in that process, maybe they ask for help, maybe they utilize a practice of some sort to improve their chances, or even change the mode to something else "Oh, I drink my potion of flying and avoid the nasty swim across the icy river." OK, now its an Athletics check to see if you fly to the right place. I mean, hopefully, the players are experiencing the feeling of 'being there' and inhabiting the character, but its far from the whole experience, and it isn't disengaged from the system.

Now, other games may be closer to what you're talking about, where there are many fewer rules and/or they are all handled on the GM side, or whatever. I don't know. I can think of games that certainly could be/are played with very little OOC decision making by players, like maybe PACE when really well run could do that.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

That's not what The Magic Circle is about at all. It's about fully embracing the structure of play and taking on the expectations of the game we are all playing together.

The backbone of The Magic Circle is the conceit of the alibi, allowing us to step away from our culturally prescribed roles and fully take on new ones. To have a space where we can confidently play.

 

[clearstream]

My post wasn't responding to the proposition in your first paragraph, nor to your edit. It was responding to this:

That question only make sense if there is some sort of balance between (i) a vivid game-world that players inhabit, and (ii) pure shared authorship. And I am expressing doubt about that premise: I don't see any particular reason to think those things are in balance.

The thought experiment my question is intended to guide toward is this

1. I could begin with a pre-authored game-world, such as Stonetop, that I count vivid and inhabitable
2. In an alternative world, I could begin with a tabula-rasa, and my group will author our game-world on the fly. Here I mean tabula-rasa with utmost sincerity! No sneaking in of any preliminary sketches. Nothing about the world is pre-authored. It is perforce the case that no adjectives can be reliably assigned to it by me, thus inviting each reader to make their own judgement (as you do.)

These are dichotomous so that there is no world in which it is possible for me to begin with both a pre-authored game-world and a tabula-rasa at the same time. I could begin with those things at different times, or with different groups, but that is to invent a different starting point for my thought-experiment, and abandon the one I proposed.

I'm just wondering what you are thinking of? Where the balance could lie between a vivid game-world that players inhabit, and pure shared authorship?

My question proposes resisting that dichotomy. If we were to avoid either extreme, to find a balance, where might that lie? Can there be some pre-authoring mixed with some authoring-on-the-fly? Might it matter who does the (pre-)authoring in those respective timeframes? Is any amount of pre-authoring - even an iota - a curse? Or is there a way to grasp the pre-authored game-world that dissolves the tension - so that we need not choose a point on a line, but make decisions about each independently? All of these thoughts and others like them are intended to be invited by my question.

In your edit to your reply to my post, you ask a different question - does 229 pages of setting detail forestall "story now"? I haven't read the Stonetop pages, so can't comment on them. There are more than 229 pages of detail written by JRRT about Middle Earth, and I have done "story now" RPGing set in Middle Earth (using Cortex+ Heroic). Paying HeroWars/Quest in Glorantha might involve engaging with a fair bit of pre-authored setting. But not all pre-authored material is conducive to story now play. Consider Edwards's remarks about Over the Edge, which begin with a quote from the rulebook:

​

The first time I [ie Jonathan Tweet] played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse.​

​

All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play . . . and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play . . . then why present the results of the play-experience as the material for another person's experience?​

In the same edit, you ask yet another question: might Strandberg's inspired and carefully considered world be worth playing in, compared with what we come up with on the fly? Presumably the answer to that depends at least on (i) what we feel like doing and (ii) what we might come up with on the fly. I don't see any reason to think there would be a unique answer to that question even for a single group of RPGers, let alone the RPG community in general.

What you dig into here is close to what I am asking. Is Edwards right? So that Stonetop's - 229 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting is indeed an irredeemable curse!? (There is a technical detail here as to the game texts that I am glossing over, and will get into if necessary.)

Tweet's caveats might discount any characterisation of his world-text as "canonical", but Edwards seems skeptical that there can be any value in pre-authored material such as Stonetop's 229 pages at all (canonical or otherwise). Strandberg has wasted his time, or even worse, cursed others with a ball-and-chain around their necks. Nothing in what Edwards says here lets in the possibility of unique answers for individual groups of RPGers.

But as you say, there really isn't likely to be one answer that applies to all, at all times. My question doesn't demand one. My question is - sincerely - a question. It suggests that there could possibly be a balance between pre-authorship and player-authorship-on-the-fly, and asks where each reader feels that balance lies for them between pre-authored world and authorship-on-the-fly? Do they genuinely feel the greatest benefit in proceeding from tabula-rasa, or do they benefit from some preliminary sketches?

As an aside, I have run a few actual tabula-rasa freeform RPGs. Someone always has to open with something. Typically me

My question is intended to imply skepticism about the dichotomy I first put in mind. I suggest that there can be a balance - some of each. That turns not on the question of what adjectives might be applied to authored-on-the-fly game-worlds (that's up to each reader) but whether a dichotomy is forced upon us at all, and relatedly what value (or values, at different times) could inform choices about how much of each we best benefit from (which must be contextualised in our criteria for counts-as-a-benefit which as you imply will vary.)

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream

That's not what The Magic Circle is about at all. It's about fully embracing the structure of play and taking on the expectations of the game we are all playing together.

That is a repetition of what I defined, but that might not be clear without reading Bernard Suits on lusory attitudes / lusory expectations. NOTE SMALL EDIT.

The backbone of The Magic Circle is the conceit of the alibi, allowing us to step away from our culturally prescribed roles and fully take on new ones. To have a space where we can confidently play.

I agree with your sense here, other than the characterisation of "backbone" and the stepping away from culturally prescribed roles. I follow Miguel's Sicart's belief that players adopt a dual nature, making themselves both subject to game while remaining members of their culture. You'd need to read his book on Game Ethics to see why that seems convincing.

So within the circle, players are both their adopted roles - as you say - and they remain members of their culture, which has implications. One evidence of that are the consent guidelines that increasingly often appear in RPG game texts.

EDIT It strikes me that you can mean by stepping away much the same as what I mean... more of a loosening or shedding of some facets, retaining others. Also, it does feel rather unfair to be held so strictly to account for a quick definition I dashed off to guide another poster, and NOT for wider context!!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My biggest objection to a/d (but its a huge one) is it say, not only nothing is worth paying attention to until its This Tall, but it then says after one of them applies, no others matter. I really can't describe what a blunt object I find that to be.

Sure. My overall philosophy with designing stuff is very similar to that expounded by the developers of the game Strike! (which is also inspired by 4e as it happens). So the concept is to just focus on what really matters and make the granularity of what the system deals with in any given 'concern' is as low resolution as it can be and still do its work. The idea is that this puts the focus on what is important, and reduces distractions significantly. Strike! for instance replaced the d20 with a d6, which has the effect of making rampant modifiers impossible, the smallest one you can have is roughly on a par with what Advantage gives you in HoML or 5e, and a +2 is a giant bonus, while +3 basically means "you almost cannot fail." I don't think +3 even exists in Strike!. Honestly, I also feel like, for most purposes if there's a bunch of things that would give you advantage, then why is this even a check? In combat things IMHO shouldn't really ever BE that lopsided, assuming your opponent is at all competent we can assume they're doing something to help themselves. Again, once things get to something like "You are unseen, and flanking, and a rogue, and the guy is surprised" I feel like the situation isn't really a fight anymore.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My take is that just because something isn't written down doesn't make it 'not system'. The rules of sports games were surely not written down for 1000's of years, and yet the play of these games was often HIGHLY codified. It was just a set of agreed-upon conventions which formed a complete rules system. Infamously in past centuries disagreements about exactly what the rules were often lead to bloodshed and other unpleasantness, but it was still a game with rules, which is the fundamental definition of 'system' to me.

So, if all the participants in 'FKR' games consistently agree that the referee needs to act in certain ways and invoke certain rules/procedures then THOSE ARE THE SYSTEM. It is OK to say that the referee has leeway to decide as they see fit in more cases, without reference to something written down, as in, say 5e D&D, but its not thus clear that this makes the game less systematic.

To the best of my knowledge the specific point of the actual Free Kriegsspiel (not the FKR movement of the modern day as a philosophy of play, the original wargaming) was very specifically to not use rules. There were rules for Kriegsspiel--rather a lot of them, in fact, so many that it was too difficult to find people who knew all the rules willing to referee...and also pretty difficult to get junior officers to sit down and read through and try to understand all those rules. So they said, "Alright, we're ditching the rulebook. The only rules will be the dice-roll table for consequences. Absolutely everything else, literally everything, will be left purely to the discretion of the referee. The effects of fog of war? Referee decides. The logistical requirements of fording a river? Referee decides." Now, of course, if a ref gained a reputation of capricious or unfair decisions, people would probably stop playing with that referee. But, again as I understood it, the whole point of switching to Free Kriegsspiel was to make it so almost anyone with wartime experience could referee, and almost anyone wanting warfare experience could play, because the only limits would be "what the referee considers reasonable."

This is very different from your sports analogy, where the rules might not have been "written down," but they surely existed as rules, as in, they could be enumerated by the people playing. Free Kriegsspiel was not, as I understand it, meant to work like that. It was not meant to have "actual rules, that we just by happenstance didn't write down."

FKR, however, is even more than that. It's explicitly the rejection of doing things via rules in the first place. Those links I provided go into pretty significant detail about how this style of play will break down if the people playing it have "invisible rulebooks" that differ by too much. That seems to be a pretty clear admission that there aren't really any rules to begin with, just intuition and experience, which two people simply may not share.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps you're playing "story now"? I don't know, I am only trying to go on a few fairly abstract descriptions of your play.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not, it's just your binary lists fail to capture the reality of my game and games of a lot of people commonly play.

Does it matter that the PCs are doing this? Or is it more like bribing the Ogre in B2 play to have it help us beat the Orcs - a move that is primarily an expedient one, with no meaning beyond that?

Who defines what matters? And yes, whilst of course whom to ally with always tends to have some practical considerations involved, it also includes taking stance on moral issue, and deciding who to trust. The things you felt were important the characters can do without the system or other outside considerations exerting undue limits or pressure on them. So that's what's happening here.

I generally try to build somewhat morally grey situations. People (and/including 'monsters') have their reasons, have their beliefs and motivations, and these often come to conflict. I'm not there to tell the players to which side to take, if any.

In "story now" play, the answer is - because that is what the player has established as salient, relevant, compelling, <insert suitable adjective here>. There are very many ways for a player to do this - via PC build, via action declaration, via informal signals at either of those points, via out-of-character requests or remarks, etc. But it is a hallmark of "story now" play that the player is the one who establishes the context for, the meaning of, the salience of, the relevance of, etc, whatever it is that is at stake in a situation.

Right. I get this. Can you get that in some games (hell, possibly in most games) some scenes are framed for this sort of reasons and some are framed in other reasons? It wouldn't even be unusual to have several reasons for framing a one scene. So what are we doing then?

This goes all the way back to my doubt that a curiosity about dragons triggered by seeing "here be dragons" in a GM's notes or map is a hallmark of "story now" play. Perhaps on the odd occasion it is - seeing the GM's note triggers or crystallises some idea of the players, about what would be thematically compelling. But far more typical, I think, is that the player in this sort of case is curiously exploring the GM's fiction, and inviting the GM to establish the context for the stakes of particular scenes.

I mean, sure, it totally could be just "Oh, it says 'there be dragon's' on the map, let's go check it out." But it also could be "I need to prove my worth to the clan elders. Oh, it says 'there be dragon's' on the map! Becoming a dragon slayer and bringing a dragon head to hang in the high hall would sure get the respect of the elders, let's go there." Or something completely else, who knows. But the player interacting with established setting elements and incorporating them in the fulfilment of their dramatic needs in no way means that they cannot establish those needs in the first place, unless the setting is some sort of bizarre featureless white plain with nothing to materially anchor the needs to.

Oh, and if you're going to say, "but the player needed to establish that the clan elders existed." No they didn't. They needed that there is some sort of society with authority structure, respect of which they wished to earn. And that will indubitably exist in some form practically in any setting.

I want go back to your Exalted story about the Deathlord. As I understand your account of it, you (and most of the table) didn't think that anything was as stake during the monologue - it was intended just as colour to support the framing of the conflict between PCs and Deathlord. But your player injected stakes into the situation, which - via their play of their PC - they had made salient; and they made a choice that - as you seemed to describe it - shocked the table.

So that was ages ago, so I don't remember the details super clearly, and my GMing style and principles have probably evolved since. But yes, it is true that both me and and the other players mostly saw it as a dramatic device. The villain makes an offering to the hero, the hero refuses. But I also don't think that the fact that I saw that particular thing that way at the moment properly reflects how I generally view players making choices; not then and definitely not now. It was just that the cost was so obviously absurdly high and the villain was so obviously completely bonkers, that the likely outcome of the offer seemed rather clear to me. But I also followed my usual principles and let the player make the choice they wanted. Like I said earlier, when I frame situations I sometimes have and 'expected' outcomes in mind, in the sense of what I consider to be likely, but that this is in no way prescriptive. I certainly don't try to force things into that 'expected' outcome if it seems that the players want to do something completely different.

Maybe the allying with the harpy was like that? From your account I simply can't tell.

No, it is rather different. Not completely different, but still. The Deathlord thing was a clear binary choice with immediate and obvious consequences. The harpy situation is more complex with several overlapping motives, and it is also risk-taking, consequences of which will be truly known only later. They both however share the similarity of the character sympathising (and at least party) agreeing with the validity of grievances of a creature which in most context would be seem as a clear antagonist. I also noted that the two characters who were most willing to accept the validity of the harpy's point of view are orcs. Whilst the world doesn't have massive prejudice against orcs, there certainly is some of that 'monster stigma' still going around. I don't know if that was just a coincidence, I would need to ask the players. And regardless, I this this is pretty clearly the player being able to make their own moral calls you were talking about.

But there actually was other moment in the game that is more alike the Deathlord situation, though of course not in scope or even in emotional weight. But it was a character making a judgment of the situation that had drastic consequences.

There was this criminal syndicate in the town the characters are in that is dealing with magical goods. The characters decided to investigate (one, but not the only reason being the warlock being obsessed with uncovering magical secrets and mysteries so this piqued their interest.) So the warlock comes up with a cover story about being this wealthy merchant that wants to do shady business with the syndicate and the rogue manages to arrange a meeting with their leader for the party. They meet in an abandoned warehouse, and there is ton of the crooks present. I assume it is very clear that the characters are on their turf, outgunned and outnumbered. There is bunch of talk with syndicate leader, who is this sort of charismatic and confident criminal master-mind type. The crucial dice rolls here are to see whether the crime lord buys the warlock's cover story, and the dice decide that the answer is resounding 'not even remotely.' So the leader confronts them and threatens them and demands them to tell why they're really there. The warlock who is rather confident (some would say overconfident) and proud (some would say arrogant) threatened the leader back. This didn't improve the attitude of the crime boss at all. The rogue (who, perhaps due her background and occupation seems to have a better read of the room) tries to defuse the situation, and starts to talk about how they were actually just planning to do some crime but wanted to scout the local scene to not step on anyone's toes and perhaps the party could do some favour to the crime boss... And we never know whether that would have worked (it could have) because the warlock, who doesn't want to back down and end up in subservient position starts to cast a fireball!

And holy crap, I though that was a really bad call and was sure that they would die! The people present were not in any way or form designed as any sort of fair or even remotely survivable encounter, it was just what the syndicate would logically bring, and they absolutely had stacked the deck in their favour. The odds look absolutely grim and the rogue actually decides to flee and even manages to exit the building, but eventually changes her mind and returns to help*. (Which is absolutely critical as she's the most effective damage dealer in the group.) Luckily for the party, the challenge rating is a complete joke, and against all odds they somehow managed to prevail. It was super close, insanely dangerous. After the fight the rogue (the character, not the player) was so furious with the warlock that she punched the warlock with full force, absolutely hilariously knocking off the warlocks last remaining hit points!

It really wasn't any sort of deep character drama but it was a glorious concoction of character motivations, personalities, independent setting elements and some luck creating an unpredictable explosive mix. And that's what I'm here for!

(*It is also interesting how the rogue's background involves bailing on her previous crew due some ideological differences.)

What counts as a judgement? I'm relying on the intuitive idea that some fiction has, or makes, a "point" and some doesn't. Edwards drew the contrast when he referred to the pages of description of military hardware in a Clancy thriller. Edwards also refers to an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence". Human relationships. The nature and meaning of life and death. Law vs chaos. Loyalty vs betrayal. Valour vs cowardice. Justice vs mercy. Tradition vs change. The place of hope in the universe. These are just some of the core, recurring, themes of fantasy and hence the sorts of things one might expect in FRPGing. There are myriad ways of particularising them, elaborating on them, bringing them into play, responding to them.

Here are some examples that Edwards gives:

• Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
• Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?
• And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories of all sorts.

And here are some points of contrast, made with reference to vampire RPGing:

• Character . . . What does it feel like to be a vampire?
• Situation . . . What does the vampire lord require me to do?
• Setting . . . How has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?
• System . . . How do various weapons harm or fail to harm a vampire, in specific causal detail?

I hope that's clear enough.

Yes, clearish enough. But this another pair of binary lists that again brings us the crux of the matter, and I genuinely hope that you this time actually address it. Those list are either intentionally or accidentally highly misleading. Yes, V:tM game probably will address the things on the second list. It also will absolutely address the things that are of the type of the things on the first list. The cost of immortally, trying to retain one's humanity vs embracing the beast, and of course a bunch of other things some of which are not even directly about vampirism, but rather about drama and tensions regarding relationships, powers structures etc.

So this is what I want you to address: what if the game has a mix of things, some of which that are on your story now lists and some that are on your not-story-now lists? What's happening then? What is it? Because every iteration of these you have produced has elicited in me the same response: a lot of these do not exclude each other and a ton of games combine stuff from both categories. So could we just please accept the reality and acknowledge that this is thing?

To me, your question is the same as asking at what point does a story prompt prevent an author from expressing their vision? I don't see how there can be any mechanical answer.

Right. So it is fuzzy, pretty arbitrary and rather subjective. Agreed.

Sword and sorcery pulp doesn't seem problematic. Nor does "you are members of the rebellion". Whereas "you are heroes of the rebellion" seems to me to already answer the questions that game is most likely to pose.

Yes, the last one answers more questions. But the first two still answer some questions too. And I think it is absolutely valid to more tightly define the premise in confines of which we are answering the questions. I'm sure you love this, but it is a spectrum.

Given that the fundamental act of RPGing is authoring a shared fiction, and that who does this in accordance with what principles is what marks the basic differences between RPG experiences, knowing how declared actions are resolved is pretty fundamental to understanding what sort of game is being played.

If what you're getting at there is whether the dice rolls established the presence of some setting elements or merely gave the characters access to information regarding already existing setting elements, the answer is probably closer to the latter. But of course the limited amount of definition the setting can actually have in pre-play stage, the characters' inquiries certainly in a sense caused some more definition to emerge. For example whilst the a vague wavefunction of rich people existed in my description of the area as more affluent looking, the precise wealthy individuals and the location of their specific houses only collapsed into existence due the inquiries made by the rogue.

As it stands, that's not a description of "character driven play". Where and how do the characters figure? Players making choices within a fairly traditional sandbox seems to fall under the description of "the players decide they want to do something, and then the story is about that".

No, that would be unfair. Sure, wanting to rob a house might not be a super deep goal that tells us great deal about the nature of humanity (though considering the history of humanity, I might not even be so sure about that,) but it absolutely derives from the motivations of the character which in turn derive from their nature. In this instance I wouldn't describe it just as old fashioned greed either, there is a quite substantial dose of healthy punk attitude and 'sticking it to the man' involved in here. The character has distrust of 'upper classes' and authority figures. She also use thievery to 'punish' people she think are deserving, like the stealing the fancy ring of a guard captain she felt was arrogant and dismissive. So sort of like Robin Hood, except instead of giving the loot to the poor she spends it on booze and fast women!

And yeah, these are not super complex characters, and not all of them have deep traumas and issues (though some definitely do.) (This is pulpy action adventure, not deep character drama.) But they absolutely are well defined characters with their own personalities and drives, which shape the direction of play.