This is closer to my own preferences. But I think I have less inherent thespianism, and more of a desire to feel what my character feels, and be moved as they are moved - the "inhabitation" I keep rabbiting on about.
Didn't you just a few posts ago imply this is impossible? Or is it that it you can only do it if the rules tell you what to feel? I'm so confused...
I've not said, nor implied, that inhabitation of character is impossible. I've repeatedly stated, including in this thread, that as a player it is my goal.
If I am going to inhabit my character
being moved in some non-chosen way then I am not looking to have to choose that - which would be self-defeating!
I want the system itself to generate, concurrently in me as it does in my character, the response in question. Some of this comes from what the system tells me, where I can anticipate or follow along with that (much as how, eg,
@TwoSix describes being immersed in D&D combat, I'm guessing because similarly he can anticipate and follow along with what the mechanics are dictating). What the system tells me is, in turn, shaped by what I know about how the system picks up on, and develops, the established fiction.
An example from Burning Wheel play:
My group had a session scheduled for today, but due to various vicissitudes only two of us could make it. The other attendee suggested we start a BW game with the two of us making PCs and "round robinning" the GMing.
He burned up a Weather Witch (City Born, Arcane Devotee, Rogue Wizard, Weather Witch). I decided to make a Dark Elf (with his agreement, as per the rules) - Born Etharch, Spouse, Griever, Deceiver. To earn the Grief to make the move to Griever (3 minimum) I had no lamentations, was Born Etharch, and had a history that included tragedy - my spouse died.
I've attached my full PC sheet: some highlights are my gear (the tattered clothes I've worn for the past 39 years, since my spouse died; my black-metal long knife Heart-seeker); my hateful relationship with my father-in-law, the elven ambassador in a human port city whom I blame for my spouse's death; and what I hope will prove to be a suitably embittered suite of Beliefs and Instincts, except for my tendency to quietly sing the elven lays when my mind wanders. I also started barefoot, but didn't end the session that way!
<snip>
With the morning mist rolling in, it was time to clean out the innkeeper's cash box. We agreed that the day's takings would be 2D of cash. With successful checks, Alicia cast Cat's Eye so she could see in the dark; I succeeded at a straightforward Scavenging check so that Aedhros could find a burning brand (he can see in dim light or by starlight, but not in dark when the starts are obscured by mist). Alicia went first, in the dark but able to see, but failed an untrained Stealthy check despite a penalty to the innkeeper's Perception check for being asleep. So as she opened the door to the room where was sleeping on his feather-and-wool-stuffed mattress, he woke and stood up, moving his strongbox behind him. Alicia, being determined - as per one of her Beliefs - to meet any wrong to her with double in return, decided to tackle him physically. Of course she is trained in Martial Arts, as that's a favourite of her player! I proposed and he agreed that we resolve this via Bloody Versus (ie simple opposed checks) rather than fully scripting in Fight! I set the innkeeper's Brawling at 3, but he had significant penalties due to darkness, and so Alica - with 4 dice + 1 bonus die for superior Reflexes - won the fight easily. The injury inflicted was only superficial, but (as per the rules for Bloody Versus) Alicia had the innkeeper at her mercy - as we narrated it, thrown to the ground and held in a lock.
Aedhros entered the room at this point, with Heart-seeker drawn and ready for it to live up to its name. But Alicia thought that killing the innkeeper was a bit much. So first, she used her advantageous position to render the innkeeper unconscious (no check required, given the outcome of the Bloody Versus). Then her player, wearing the GM hat, insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder. This failed, and so I hesitated for 4 actions. Handily, that is the casting time for Persuasion, and so Alicia "told" Aedhros not to kill the innkeeper. The casting check succeeded, but the Tax check was one success against an obstacle of 4. With only 1 Forte left, that was 3 Tax which would be 2 overtax, or an 8-point wound, which would be Traumatic for Alicia. But! - the Tax check also was the final check needed for her Forte 3 to step up to Forte 4 (wizard's get lots of juicy Forte checks because of all their Tax - in this case from the three spells cast), which made the overtax only 1, or a 4-point wound which was merely Superficial. Still, she collapsed unconscious.
Aedhros opened the strongbox and took the cash. We agreed that no check was required; and given his Belief that he can tolerate Alicia's company only because she's broken and poor, and given that it aggravates his Spite to suffer her incompetence in fainting, he kept all the money for himself. He then carried out the unconscious Alicia (again, no check required). He also took the innkeeper's boots, being sick of going about barefoot. But he will continue to wear his tattered clothes.
I built my character to be a would-be murderous rogue, but I also know the rules for Steel. The drawing of Heart-seeker and willingness to use it had already foregrounded a type of awful climax - Aedhros running the innkeeper through. I (the player) knew it was awful, and that it would be a terrible thing for Aedhros to do. The system dictates that Aedhros, too, knows it is awful - the system includes Traits that inure the character who has them to the awfulness of murder, but Aedhros does not have any such Trait.
And then, when - at the call of the GM - I roll for Steel, the awfulness is brought home in mechanical terms. I look at the dice and know that I (as Aedhros) will hesitate, just as Aedhros - about to do the awful deed - hesitates for 4 heartbeats.
This is one example of inhabitation.
Here's another:
My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.
At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.
Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.
<snip>
The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.
As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").
Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").
Thurgon has Faith, but he knows that faith can falter, and is not always pure and strong enough for the divinity to hear the faithful's call. The system reflects this, via the system for tests on Faith.
Thurgon is invested - and so am I, the player, as I put Thurgon's "will to live" Persona point into the dice pool. Thurgon wonders,
will the Lord of Battle hear my prayer? And I roll the dice, wondering
will Thurgon's prayer be answered? Will I get what I want for my PC?
My sense of relief and elation when the 7 successes come up mirrors Thurgon's relief and elation that his prayer has indeed been heard and answered, so that his mother is now relieved of her burdens and is ready to join with him in liberating Auxol, their ancestral estate.
I think both these examples are also relevant to posts I've made upthread, about the significance of the player establishing stakes. There is no arbitrary NPC ready to stab Aedhros or Thurgon, no random necromancer trying to persuade them to take up a fetch-quest for the Red Ruby of Doom - the situations they are confronting speak directly to thematic and dramatic concerns that are elements of the characters themselves. And this is not some sort of coincidence - this is the GM following the principles set out pretty straightforwardly in the BW rulebook. Here's a post that sets out the core of those principles, from a thread a couple of months ago that you participated in:
Here are some extracts from BW Hub and Spokes (pp 9-11, 30-32), that set out the basic process of play for that game
<snip>
In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. The synergy of inspiration, imagination, numbers and priorities is the most fundamental element of Burning Wheel. Expressing these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .
The players interact with one another to come to decisions and have the characters undertake actions.
One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.
Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. Even if the players decide to take on the roles of destitute wastrels, no matter how unsavory their exploits, they are the focus of the story. The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .
[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.
This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . .
When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .
When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication.
So, as you can read for yourself, the
players, as part of the build and play of their PCs, introduce certain
priorities. The PC-building rules and the setting-building rules for the game provide a lot of support and structure for the players to establish priorities for their PCs; my own PCs for this system tend to have priorities based around their family relationships, other friendships or rivalries, their social aspirations for themselves or others, and the like. The GM then frames scenes that speak to those player-determined priorities. The players, playing their PCs, are thereby provoked to declare actions for their PCs. These actions are resolved via dice rolls. If the player's roll is a success, the PC succeeds at the declared task, and achieves their intent. If the roll fails, the GM re-frames the scene in a way that (i) means that the intent did not come to pass, and (ii) that provokes the player to a new action declaration, still based on their priorities for their PCs.
