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

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry to snip; this is what I'm responding to.

I'd like to think I gave FATE a fair try, over a year-ish of play. I'm not sure how much of my gradual-then-abrupt frustration with the system was about the other players at the table, and how much of it was me, and how much of it was ... shrinkological badness that doesn't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. At this point, I think what I'd start with is that it seems to me to call for a more adversarial approach to GMing than I'm happy with, from either side of the (metaphorical) screen, which doesn't seem to me as though it'd be conducive to the trust I think is necessary between player and GM. I don't see how you can pick an aspect (let alone a trouble) if you don't trust the GM not to hose you with it.

No problem, I definitely don't want to seem like I'm saying you not liking FATE is in any way a negative. I'm not much of a fan of it, either, preferring a more traditional D&D 5e game or, more strongly, something more in line with PbtA games (specifically Blades or Scum and Villany). Those are pretty far apart, play way, and I find FATE too in the middle for my preferences.

That being said, I think your last line is very telling of the mindset you've brought with you. Your trouble isn't something you should see as the GM using to hose you, but rather something that you've chosen to hose yourself. Of course, I apparently have an idiosyncratic view of FATE, as I'm struggling to understand it as a planned game versus a 'in the moment' game, so the idea of the GM compelling a trouble really just sounds like an opportunity to see where the fiction goes as defined by a player telling me what kinds of things they want to see in the game. Apparently, though, that's not how many people approach FATE play, instead having a strong DM curated storyline where troubles really are something the GM uses to bleed points from players. I struggle with that concept as the best use of the rules, but I'm told some really enjoy this kind of play. So, yeah, I commiserate at having a conception that doesn't jive with how others use a system.

 

[Umbran]

... the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth).

Um...

2nd Edition AD&D came out in 1989.

White Wolf games was founded in 1991, and Vampire: The Masquerade came out that year, 1991.

Did someone from TSR travel ahead a couple years in time, to co-opt rules that hadn't been published yet?

 

[prabe]

No problem, I definitely don't want to seem like I'm saying you not liking FATE is in any way a negative. I'm not much of a fan of it, either, preferring a more traditional D&D 5e game or, more strongly, something more in line with PbtA games (specifically Blades or Scum and Villany). Those are pretty far apart, play way, and I find FATE too in the middle for my preferences.

I haven't looked more than a little bit into the PbtA constellation of games. The ones I have looked at, though, have generated nearly-visceral noooope, though, so I don't exactly hold out hope. That said, roughly congruent with you, I don't think liking them makes someone a bad person.

Your trouble isn't something you should see as the GM using to hose you, but rather something that you've chosen to hose yourself.

It's not the general "I've chosen this trouble" that bothers me, genuinely. I don't mind the concept of disadvantages as part of building a character. It's the specific timing of the compels that would grind my nerves, I think, along with the "I want things to go badly for my character" thing, because as a player I really want my desires to (more or less) align with my character's.

So, yeah, I commiserate at having a conception that doesn't jive with how others use a system.

Yeah. Thanks for answering in good faith. After my little flare-up earlier, that matters to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

I would say that almost completely unstructured Free-form gaming where dispute mediation is table consensus and a simple coin flip to break ties can yield character-driven play if Force (as I've outlined above) doesn't emerge to co-opt thematic/tactical/strategic decision-making to control the gamestate and trajectory of play.

Force (be it for or against the player's interests) is absolutely anathema to character-driven play. Its kryptonite.
My opinion is just that table consensus will move towards play that is degenerate with respect to the goal of authentic, emergent character-driven play (because peoples' biases, unconscious or acknowledged, and then the propensity to assemble into tribes based on common aims).

Consequently, a system that:

(a) constrains GMing such that Force isn't on the table
(b) makes it easy for awesome character-driven play to emerge as a byproduct of simply playing the game (c) has clear thematic PC build flags and incentive structures + feedback loops in place that press upon the players to coherently advocate for their PCs
(d) while ensuring compelling, relevant opposition will consistently emerge to interpose itself between the PCs and their goals in conflict-charged scenes

...that has the best chance of consistently achieving the goal of emergent fiction and character-driven play.

Can you do so without b and c? Yes. But (a) and (d) are pretty much mandatory in my opinion. And (b) and (c) makes the whole operation easier/more reproducible.

I'm not sure I agree. I think that Force can be present and still have arcs. In other words, I can see (and have played) a game where some of it is the GM's plotline while other parts have room for player directed play. Sometimes, these line up and you get character arcs. But, as with anything ad hoc, it's not predictable.

 

[Wolfpack48]

"Playing in character" sounds like acting? If so, that's one way to roleplay, for sure, but not the only or even best way, although it seems widely preferred (and is one of my preferences, largely). However, the topic isn't 'how to act at the table like I imagine my character being' but rather how to enjoy a game that focuses, at least largely, on characters growing and changing. Acting isn't necessary for this, nor does acting cause this -- it's orthogonal to the issue. So, no, I don't really see how your argument actually encourages character arcs. I mean, you can successfully act a flat, unchanging character with great skill and aplomb as much as you can terribly act or even third person a dynamic, evolving character. Acting doesn't mean much in the context of the discussion.

Yep, acting could be one way of exploring character growth, but certainly not the only way. Plenty of books on writing character in short story or novel or screenplay form. Trying to codify it in a rule set only creates constraints as players try to squish their play into the framework or terminology. Just play a.character. It’s much more free and natural especially if you find a like minded group.

 

[Lanefan]

Alright, before the proverbial horse that you're setting up to get out the gate wreaks its havoc, let me correct your misunderstanding (at least with respect to me...I'll let others speak for themselves or they can agree with me as they like):

When I use the term GM Force, its associated with a very specific type of player agency that is being subordinated to the whim of the GM. Now some systems promote this "GM Force subordinating player agency" as a "feature", the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth). In that case its not "extra-system" GM Force. Accordingly, I won't decry it for being a game that is deceitful about what is happening behind the curtain, because it is honest that Illusionism (covert GM Force) is fundamental to play because the apex priority is about something else (typically "the GM tells a good story and controls the trajectory of play, while the players participate in the GM's story and everyone has a good time.").

But, regardless of the systemitized GM Force/Illusionism...its still there.

OK, so far I'm with you.

So here is my issue as it pertains to GM Force (covert or overt) and player agency.

GM Force is the subordination by fiat of a player's thematic, strategic, tactical (any/all) decision-making to the whim/will of the GM, for the sake of controlling the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play.

The games I'm talking about in this thread (a) don't have subordination by GM fiat and (b) they don't condone (in fact they do the opposite) GMs controlling the gamestate and the trajectory of play.

Right, still with you, though you're drifting off point a bit.

Social Conflict mechanics imposing states-of-being on PCs and creating finality of resolution are neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force (whether the system condones it as a feature or not).

Hopefully that makes sense and clears that all up.

No, in fact it rather muddies things.

You're looking at GM force and player agency as an either-or (that's how the above reads, anyway). But GM force is but one of three main things that can impact player agency - and for the purpose of this discussion isn't even the relevant one.

The second is external effects e.g. charms-dominations-possessions-etc.

And the third is social conflict mechanics; and while these are certainly "neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force", they still take away player agency. These mechanics can be invoked by the GM, or by another player, or by the system; my objection is that they exist to be invoked at all.

Of the three, the first is generally bad while the second is IME usually accepted as part of the game. It's the third one - the social conflict mechanics - where the issue lies, as for some of us they're a completely unnecessary blow to player agency and fully-in-character roleplay.

 

[Lanefan]

The two bolded phrases are not synonyms.

True, player agency over one's character is a subset of player agency overall. (though I happen to think it's by far the most important aspect)

But for the purposes of the points I'm trying to make in this discussion, they're more or less the same: player agency includes complete control over one's character, absent the use of external control mechanics.

I have never seen anyone argue that players should have unlimited agency (ie be the sole authors of the shared fiction). What I mostly see disputes about is whether players should have any agency in respect of the shared fiction.

Which is a different branch or aspect of player agency, and though perhaps germaine to the larger discussion around character-driven play it's not all that relevant when talking of the impact of social conflict mechanics.

I think that character-driven play of the sort @innerdude describes can't take place of players don't have some agancy in respect of the shared fiction, including in respect of the emotional states and social responses of NPCs. (Eg it has to be possible for a PC to befriend a NPC without the GM being the one who decides it.)

However, if the player of an NPC (that being the GM) can be forced to play a character a certain way then it naturally follows the same can and will happen in reverse: the player of a PC can be forced by the same mechanics to play that PC a certain way: the emotional state and social response of the PC will be driven by those mechanics. (and I'll cut off the "PCs and NPCs work differently" argument right now by simply saying don't bother, as that discussion is a non-starter)

Never mind that some of the examples here have involved two or more PCs trying to influence each other: the GM isn't even involved. Does it - to use your own example above - have to "be possible for a PC to befriend [another PC] without [that PC's player] being the one who decides it"?

If player agency is confined to fighting and climbing and other feats of physical prowess, it will be very hard to get character-driven arcs because those things on their own tend not to reveal enough about the character.

Agreed. Character, with all it entails, is more often (and usually better) revealed through roleplay than through physical actions.

 

[pemerton]

I think that it's hard to not place importance on who the characters are specifically if you want character driven play. If the characters in the story can be easily swapped out for another, and little is changed about the course of play, then I don't think that it's strongly character driven play. I don't think that means that it is entirely absent of character driven elements, just that they are less central to play.

I don't think that you can claim to promote character driven play while simultaneously dismissing the importance of character.

Pithy and true!

It's possible to have RPGing where character is central in the way you describe here, but there aren't the sorts of dramatic arcs that are described in the OP. A lot of my 4e D&D play has been like this - the events and concerns are particular to the PCs, but the fundamental nature of the PCs often is not at risk. (Sometimes it has been. But often not.)

But the converse is, as you say, not possible.

Real people are not as in control of themselves as a Player is of his PC.

beyond that is the idea that things that we know about our characters can change without our permission. They don't happen because I've decided that my character is now angsty because his family was killed, or any similar characterization element. Instead, they happen as the result of play.

When there are mechanics that involve aspects of the character such as their beliefs or goals or flaws, then those mechanics are kind of by default character driven game elements.

<snip>

If the system instead allows me at any time to decide how my character behaves, then it may be a flaw that never comes up in play, or will only come up when I as a player decide it's convenient. The character's "struggle with deep and unfathomable anger" is anything but.

Now, there are players that maybe play with a strong sense of character, and who will allow such a flaw to meaningfully complicate play for them. There's nothing that really prevents this kind of play.

It's just that a game that has character traits and mechanics that promote this tend to do it more readily.

I think it was @Neonchameleon upthread who gave examples of character arcs from an Apocalypse World game. But AW doesn't have mechanics for flaws, aspects etc in the way that some systems do.

Burning Wheel has Beliefs, Instincts and Traits for PCs, but there is no mechanical system whereby they are changes as a direct outcome of play. A player is free to rewrite his/her PC's Beliefs and/or Instincts at almost any time. (The GM is allowed to delay a change if s/he thinks the player is trying to change them sim;y so as to avoid a hard situation for his/her PC.)

What makes character development take place in these games is that the GM has both the tools and permission to push the PCs (and thereby the players) hard, and the players have permission and even an expectation to respond to that, including by sucking up big impacts on their PCs. I've seen similar stuff in Rolemaster and even AD&D, though these are a bit more wobbly when participants start pushing hard so I wouldn't necessarily recommend them for this purpose

None of the above is to disagree about the potential utility of social/emotional resolution mechanics (below in this post I have an example that involves the use of them). But to the extent that they operate on the PCs (at the initiative of either the GM or other players) I think they're just one tool in the box. They're not fundamental. (I think player-to-NPC social/emotional mechanics are much more important, virtually fundamental, for the reasons I've already posted upthread.)

Mechanics are not necessary for character driven play, but they help, a lot. You don't need them, and can have deep and meaningful character arcs without them, but, at that point, you're doing so ad hoc, as an unstructured (and often unspoken) agreement between player and GM.

<snip>

That said, mechanical systems, with constraints, can often do a lot of the heavy lifting for character arcs

I think this is all true.

If the unstructured agreement is about GMing approaches (eg framing scenes on pressure points) then I think that can work fine. If the unstructured agreement is about laying some combination of GM decision-making and loose table consensus over the gaps in the formal system's finality of resolution, I think that creates a much higher degree of instability even with the best will in the world, because the player who cares about his/her PC has such a strong incentive to push back. I would say that, in those sorts of cases, and everything else being reasonably equal, moving to greater finality in resolution (either via informal drifting or changing systems) would probably be a good idea.

need to be understood by all involved and play goals need to be aligned. This puts a bit of an artificial spin on play, where everyone's trying to do the arc and using the mechanics to do so, that it can be jarring for some that are wanting a more organic experience. Depending on the mechanics, game genre expectations, and player goals, this artificiality can vary greatly by system, so it can sometimes be reduced by finding the right setup, gamewise and genrewise. However, there's no doubt that mechanics can push character arcs, but the feel of that pushing can be offputting.

This is why, personally, I tend to play systems where the mechanics can't themselves, directly, produce arcs - but they can produce PC-affecting outcomes that recast the circumstances a PC is in and thereby lead the player to take his/her PC in new ways.

I think I may already have posted this example upthread:

There was talk of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten. (This was Sir Lionheart, of the second Challenge from a Knight scenario in the rulebook.) Naturally the PCs headed off to see if they could do better, with a crowd in tow to see the excitement and the performer working the crowd.

<snip>

The first of the PCs to have a go was Sir Gerran. He lost, soundly beaten (but Storyteller Certificate still in the player's hand).

Next up was Justin "the Gentle", Sir Gerren's son . He lost too.

Sir Justin and the squire PC were in competition for the hand of the young and beautiful Lady Violette of Warwick, and hence their players were having a bit of a stand-off over spending their Storyteller Certificates: one use of such a certificate is to "Incite Lust" and another is to "Suppress Lust" - so if one used it to ensure Violette's affections, the other could cancel. But use in the joust with Sir Lionheart would change the balance of power.

Sir Justin's player decided, in the end, to use his certificate, but somehow let the player of the itinerent performer talk him into spending it not on outright victory ("Knock and Opponent Senseless" or "Kill a Foe in Combat") but rather on a "gold star" - a permanent PC buff allowing a bonus die once per session. The bonus die was not enough for him to defeat Sir Lionheart.

Sir Justin's player also wanted to bring his skill of arms 4 (rather than joust 0) to bear, so Sir Justin agreed to joust with real lances rather than blunted ones, and (as per the scenario description) with stakes therefore being not a small token but the loser's arms and steed. So for the second time in the campaign, Sir Justin lost his kit by losing a joust!

The squire PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. I took the words of the knight ceremony from Excalibur - "In the name of God, St Michael and St George I give you the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice".

The player of the (now) Sir Morgath determined that he would use his certificate for an outright victory. He considered knocking Sir Lionheart senseless, but he suspected (correctly, as it turned out, given the scenario description) that if he unhorsed Sir Lionheart but didn't kill him, Sir Lionheart would insist on fighting with swords to the death. So he decided to Kill a Foe in Combat - when the lances of the two knights connected, the one wielded by Sir Morgath splintered, and a shard flew through a gap in Sir Lionheart's visor and entered his brain through his eye, killing him!

Sir Morgath was feted by the crowd. He also was able to upgrade his gear, being the first of the PCs to have heavy armour and a warhorse. He also won Sir Lionheart's superbly jewelled sword, which grants a bonus die for social situations where prestige is in issue.

The other two knight did their best to re-equip themselves using surplus gear the PCs had accumulated (including Sir Morgath's old kit) and then they continued north to see what adventures might be had! On the road, they met a richly-dressed damsel, Lady Elizabeth of York, and her handmaiden, who had barely escaped from bandits while returning home from a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Sigobert. She asked for assistance, and the PCs offered it.

The introduction to the scenario notes that "An amusing use of this Episode is to get one of the Adventurers married off to the main character" and goes on to say that "Once [she] feels safe she will begin to flirt with the Adventurers, prying for information on marriage status, lands held, family, etc. During this scene she picks a candidate for marriage, if possible, from the Adventurers. Depending on the way you wish to run the Episode, the victim may consider himself lucky, or cursed". Sir Morgath, with his knightly armour, his jewelled sword, and his famous victory over Sir Lionheart, was the object of her pursuit.

Flirting and courting was interrupted by an attack by the bandits.

<snip>

The PCs were victorious and the bandits routed.

When the group arrived back at the castle of the Duke of York, he was very impressed by the young and obviously valiant Sir Morgath. An attempt by Sir Morgath to persuade the Duke that he might not be the best match for his daughter failed (ie Sir Morgath's player rolled poorly) and so he found himself being wed to Lady Elizabeth rather than the Lady Violette whose handkerchief he had been carrying with him.

<snip>

Sir Morgath and his wife were gifted with a manor. So he started the session a squire, and ended up a famous knight married to the daughter of the Duke of York!

I would guess that this is not quite as gut-wrenching an arc as the OP has in mind. But it is an arc, and has continued - while travelling to the Holy Land on crusade Sir Morgath became infatuated with the Countess of Toulouse (via my use of a GM fiat ability - that's a feature of the system), and has since been joined on his travels by his wife Elizabeth, which has made things even more difficult for him. The player has a certificate whereby he could, if he wished, Suppress Lust and thus end his infatuation, but to date has not done so. (There is no "certificate economy" comparable to the fate point economy in Fate, but some of your remarks upthread about the balance there between player choice and GM force I think are also apposite in the context of this system.)

It doesn't depend on there being any "personality" or "flaw" or "goal" mechanics. It does depend on there being conflict resolution mechanics that result in binding finality for all participants, supplemented by a limited supply of both player- and GM-side fiat options. And I think that the fact that those options extend to social/emotional aspects of the PC is a big help.

 

[Monayuris]

I've been thinking a lot lately about how despite having a tremendous amount of fun with RPGs over the years, I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

I know that most new systems these days have specific focuses on character backstory, personality traits, motivations, and desires. Even D&D, the long-time standard bearer for keeping the game more focused on gameplay rather than character driven needs, added new character-oriented traits in 5e, to say nothing of Fate which goes out of its way to purposefully bring these elements to the forefront of play.

And yes, these new character design features are incredibly useful in helping us as players come to "see" our characters as more "real" within the fiction. But in my experience, even the best of these character "hooks" or inputs don't seem to make a difference in driving an in-play narrative of substantive character change---i.e., the experience of watching a character materially change in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction.

It's generally agreed that one of the vital, key elements of great literature is a character "arc"---the observed phenomenon of a character or characters fundamentally coming to view the world and their place in it in new ways. It is these character journeys that create some of the most powerful, compelling moments that cause as us reader-participants to feel emotional resonance---to feel as if we are experiencing something meaningful, even if we are only having the experience referentially.

Obviously not having this kind of emotional resonance in RPG play doesn't mean that our player-characters aren't making "meaningful" choices. Players are often faced with having their characters act out in response to moral choices, in multiple gradations---we choose to fight for the noble baron instead of the greedy viscount; choose to let the orc leader live rather than killing him; choose to steal, but from only the top 10% of most wealthy citizens; choose to kill the evil sorcerer now to prevent the deaths of thousands later.

But the actual mechanical interplay of rules in a typical roleplaying game experience does almost nothing to promote the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature. At no time during a roleplaying session have I ever come close to having the vivid, deep, emotional response I felt when reading the last 100 pages of Guy Gavriel Kay's novel Under Heaven---nor even upon reflection am I able to see how the act of tabletop roleplaying would provide the means to do so.

It's interesting, because though I find "Railroad GM-ing" to be highly distasteful and generally anathema to the types of RPG experiences I personally would enjoy, I can begin to glimpse why a GM might try to use specific GM Force©™ in a campaign---because they think that the application of force to the "story" is a means to getting to some of that emotional resonance. It's a recognition on the part of the GM that emotional resonance is possible through a "story focus" that leads to potential meaning. Unfortunately, it seems that the application of GM Force runs counter to both endpoints---it detracts from the aspects of player freedom and choice, while only minimally (if at all) leading to the resonance made possible through the act of "pure creation" of fiction whole cloth.

And so I begin to wonder if the desire to have those kinds of emotionally resonant experiences during RPG play are somehow a fool's errand on my part. That I'm looking for a "character-driven" experience that simply isn't there and never really can be, and so should just accept RPG play for what it is, rather than trying to somehow keep reaching for this illusory experience that it's never once provided before.

Don't worry about it.

Role playing is literally just imagining yourself as your character in an imaginary dungeon. That is it. No more needed.

The idea of deep character development or the level that Critical Role goes into the game is not necessary for role playing. This is all ancillary things done by people who feel it adds to their own personal experience and it is not at all required to enjoy this game. It is definitely not required to be a role player. It is something a select few do because they think it is fun, but it is NOT how you need to play the game.

Do your thing as you wish. Ignore the other people who try to tell you you are doing it wrong. If you are playing D&D and you are having fun... no more needs to be said about the subject.

 

[pemerton]

it seems to me to call for a more adversarial approach to GMing than I'm happy with, from either side of the (metaphorical) screen, which doesn't seem to me as though it'd be conducive to the trust I think is necessary between player and GM. I don't see how you can pick an aspect (let alone a trouble) if you don't trust the GM not to hose you with it.

I've never played Fate, and probably won't anytime soon, so my thoughts are a little bit conjectural.

But to me it seems like choosing when to compel, as a Fate GM, is a bit like choosing how hard to narrate consequences in a game like Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant or 4e D&D, or choosing how hard a move to make in a game like Apocalypse World, or choosing when to activate a PC's limit in Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic. As a GM you have multiple obligations - to maintain pressure, to uphold the integrity of the fiction, to be fair to the players particular in respect of honouring their past successes. At least in my experience there is no magic formula which will combine all these duties and the current state of the fiction as input to produce a unique GM decision as output - so many intangible factors around table mood, pacing (the latter itself synergistic with the former), etc are in play I don't think there could be any such formula even in principle.

I just posted an account of Prince Valiant play. In one session I initiated a social conflict which a player lost, with the result that his PC entered into a marriage somewhat against his own preferences. Later on, I used a GM fiat ability to have the same PC fall in love with a different NPC whom he was rescuing from her cruel husband (the Count of Toulouse). Looked at from the outside this might look more arbitrary than a compel: the player has chosen any sort of romance-related flaw for his PC, and there is no Fate point economy whereby he gains from going along with me, or can immediately pay me to leave his PC alone. He has to suck it up, at least until he earns a certificate (entirely in the gift of the GM, based on my sense of roleplaying intensity and entertainment) and so gets his own chance to use a fiat ability.

Why the player accepts it - and I know this from talking to him - is because it's fun! It's hijinks in itself that leads to more hijinks. And it's hardly any sort of rabbit from a hat or bait-and-switch that in a relatively light-hearted Arthurian game knights should find themselves troubled by their relationships with damsels.

EDIT: Just saw this relevant thing from Ovinomancer:

Apparently, though, that's not how many people approach FATE play, instead having a strong DM curated storyline where troubles really are something the GM uses to bleed points from players. I struggle with that concept as the best use of the rules, but I'm told some really enjoy this kind of play.

To me that sounds a bit suck-y. It negates all the stuff I mentioned in this post as what I would assume would guide the use of compels.