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

[chaochou]

See this where things got sticky.
You're equating character-driven play with dramatic character arc whereas I am not.
Are you now saying by your definition they are one and the same thing?

Here's what Pemerton said:

What you describe here won't deliver the sort of play the OP is talking about.

There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written.

It's abundantly clear that the words 'dramatic character arcs' is a paraphrase of 'the dramatic character arcs as being described by the OP'.

And it's quite clear what the OP is talking about - in conversation the entire OP can be paraphrased interchangeably as 'dramatic character arc' or 'character driven play'. Pemerton has repeatedly quoted the OP at length to reiterate more precisely what is being discussed.

• the experience of watching a character materially change in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction.
• emotional resonance.
• 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 resonance

All under a thread title 'Can rpg play be substantively character driven?

 

[Neonchameleon]

One of the judges the TSAC provided was a huge problem for 3 fights (I am the last person in the world to buy into Conspiracy Theories, but combat sports have been riddled with corruption for a century...so this level of gross incompetence is...questionable).

Longer than a century - a century ago the Gold Dust Trio took professional wrestling and turned it from a corruption riddled thing that was sometimes a legitimate combat sport to something where the booking was obvious if you knew what to look for.

This is relevant because despite the fact that endings in professional wrestling are pre-planned (sometimes but not always more is) character development can and does happen both within and outside the booking. In the case of the Reyes/Jones match you're talking about, there would be Consequences.

An obviously corrupt referee (for those not aware the ref is always part of the cast in pro-wrestling) is a big thing and doesn't happen that often - but it does several things. The first is that it solidifies Jones as a heel - someone the audience is intended to boo the hell out of. Jones' character has developed. The second is that it solidifies Reyes as the underdog babyface that the crowd is intended to cheer. The third is that it brings that specific referee onto the stage as an actual character (most of them are intended to be the next thing to anonymous) and we wonder what his motivation is.

And were this pro wrestling a ref cheating against you would not be bad for the babyface/protagonist's career. I see there as being two basic pro-wrestling storylines going forward - and in both of them Reyes is the protagonist.

1: Reyes was actually out of his league both metaphorically and literally. He was the local wrestling league champion who was granted a challenge for the national (NWA) title. And our guy won - but that bastard no good cheating smarmy guy robbed him of the prize. So how good is our guy? We now know he's good enough to beat the national champion - and by extension that makes all the local guys challenging Reyes look good because they are taking on someone who can beat the best guy in the world. Rick Flair by the way was a master of wrestling anyone in any style in America and leaving the local crowd thinking that their guy could have won. Reyes is still only a local hero but is a bigger one than before. (This sort of booking went away largely with national TV, the breakup of the NWA, and the loss of the local territories).

2: Reyes was part of the same league and lost through a bribed ref. He is pissed and is going to be spending a lot of time cutting promos on the champion as a no good low down bastard who has all the skill to make it to the top (you never run down your opponent's level of danger because it makes you look worse when you win or lose) and he wants a rematch. If he's at all good on the mic the crowd is completely behind Reyes because he was the peoples' champion and he was robbed. His complaint is legitimate. And this time to prevent a dirty cheating referee from robbing him the match can only be decided by knockout, pinfall, or submission. The ref will not otherwise intervene. After losing the first couple of rounds Jones brings a steel chair (or other foreign object) into the ring and proceeds to beat Reyes down with it - and the ref doesn't intervene because a disqualification is not a knockout, pinfall, or submission. Reyes loses by knockout after chair shot to the head. And Reyes is utterly pissed this time - and coming for the champion with blood in his eyes, but having beaten him twice the champion is not accepting any more challenges from him unless he can earn them (insert ridiculous task here). Reyes may be mad enough to turn heel at this point - or we have a perfect excuse to put our hero through some kind of gauntlet which he wins but takes an "injury" - or to put either his career or his hair on the line for the match. This time the match takes place in a steel cage so no foreign objects (except maybe knuckle dusters) can be brought in. And the crowd is white hot for the match and wanting to finally, finally see Reyes win the title he's deserved twice before. He almost certainly does - but what has getting there cost him? And what sort of champion is he going to be?

Instead, he becomes just another "also-ran" in the legacy of Jon Jones (DMPC?).

And this sums up my point neatly. He becomes just another also-ran in the legacy of Jon Jones if and only if the results of the matches aren't pre-ordained. Pulling something as major as a corrupt referee in a pre-ordained match is adding a massive amount of fuel to the fire that is the feud. And people care more about characters and feuds than they do about simple win/loss ratios.

The New York Times stopped reporting the results of professional wrestling matches in the sports section in the 1930s because everyone knew they were fake - but for most of the 20th Century, both before and after, professional wrestling had more people watching it than any other combat sport because, by being fake, it could put on much better storylines. One in which Reyes would not become another also-ran in the legacy of Jon Jones unless he took a training accident at the wrong time.

... and I don't normally find myself on the pro-illusionism side of the debate. But then there's the way the professional wrestling business has more or less collapsed in the 21st Century.

 

[pemerton]

There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM already knows what is to come.

What about this -
Character discovers secret backstory by DM (I know) which could emotionally-affect a change in the character (in 5e one could pick up or lose a personality trait) via application of a mechanic (homebrewed or whatever, you could use the Sanity rules here for instance). This GM force (via Backstory) could be negated by the player via a character resource (resource could be an Inspiration point, or sacrificing it for a period of time).

I don't think I quite understand the example.

You seem to be positing that the application of a social/emotion mechanic (such as sanity or morale or whatever) might prompt the player to change an aspect of the character (eg rewriting a Bond, Ideal or Flaw). That seems - at the basic structural level - similar to the Nightcrawler example I posted upthread (only driven by "failure" rather than "success"). I don't see how it illustrates a story having already been written by the GM: how did s/he know what the outcome would be of the SAN check? Or how the player would develop his/her PC in response?

Or are you positing that the GM rewrites the PC via a fiat power? But how does s/he know what is going to happen as a result? In my Prince Valiant game one of the PCs - as a result of a GM-exercised Special Effect, fell in love with the Countess of Toulouse. But that didn't determine what would happen - eg that he would sneak her out of the castle they were sheltering in to keep her safe from her husband, the Count, which produced some difficulties for the other PCs when the Count demanded to them that they produce his wife. Nor that, after another PC killed her husband, that he would come up with a plan to make her the ruling Countess of Toulouse and thus separate himself from her so that he wouldn't act on his infatuation to the detriment of his marriage.

And if the player has a device for controlling or restoring his/her PC (like spending a Fate point to refuse a compel) then the GM clearly can't author the story in advance because the player has this power to determine which way it goes at a crucial moment.

So I'm clearly not seeing whatever it is that you are seeing in your example. And I'm also not seeing what "secret backstory" has to do with anything. As you describe it the player knows that the mechanic is invoked (the change in the PC presumably isn't being kept secret from the player) and presumably the player knows what it is in the fiction that explains why it is invoked. (Ie I assume the GM is not just saying make a SAN check, or add such-and-such a trait to your sheet without any explanation as to why).

There's also the bigger question as to how it is brought about that the PC is in the fictional circumstance that triggers the mechanic in the first place. That goes to bigger issues of framing which are highly relevant to character-driven play, but don't seem like they'll shed any further light on this particular example as they will only reinforce my failure to understand how the GM is authoring this and knowing what is going to happen.

 

[Sadras]

@pemerton perhaps it would be easier understood with an example.

PC trained by master. Master disappears for a number of years popping in and out of PC's life. PC discovers his master was the werewolf the party had been chasing for months (Secret Backstory by DM) and who is responsible for an ally's death. PC confronts master with the truth. With the mask now off, the master attempts to manipulate/seduce PC to his cause which is played up....

DM invokes mechanics (sanity/morale) to prompt change in aspect of PC. The player can allow the mechanics to play out with the risk of effecting change or utilise a character resource (inspiration) to ensure the emotional fallout does not affect the character - because the player does not want it.

Nor am I asking for "forced change" from the system, if the player doesn't want it.

The DM does not know how it will play out but suspects if the PC beats the mechanics or utilises a resource, the PC will likely attack the werewolf, at the very minimum deny his call for joining. If the player suffers a change - who knows what could happen.

Is this an example of character-driven play in your estimation - whether this revealed backstory is part of the main storyline or not in a GM-driven rpg.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Neonchameleon

Good, and very interesting, post.

I agree that a Narrativist (in the Forge parlance) game that transparently eschews Gamism (again, Forge parlance) as a priority, which makes overcoming the corrupt will of the institution a fundamental pillar of dramatic play, can be compelling and character-driven when constructed around that premise.

What I don’t agree with (and I’m not sure where you stand on this because your post, while interesting and illuminating, altered the play premise I was intending), is that a game that declares Gamism, neutral/fair refereeing, and competitive integrity as it’s apex priority can be character-driven when the referee system subordinates the outcome of play from the participants will to their own will.

If we transliterated your post into a rule-set and then slapped some pithy, alternative construction of the paragraph directly above on the tin so as to convey what the game is meant to be about to purchasers...

Regardless of whether it’s a commercial success, that game is either (a) deceitful with respect to what it’s about or (b) the designers aren’t terribly competent.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

"the game itself must be able to drive"...Drive as in force? Or drive as in elicit?

For me, the answer to that is "Yes."

As a non-douchey expansion on that, I think that there is room for both, games that encourage or elicit character growth, and those that force character change (which may or may not be growth). And probably an untold number of variations.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Neonchameleon

Related thought.

This is why 4e was such a success with me. It was a Narrativist/Gamist hybrid game that successfully fused those two agendas into a character-driven experience through:

* Focused premise

* Thematic PC Build Flags

* Incentive structures to aggressively pursue that premise and the embedded themes of character

* Player-facing action/conflict resolution that was (a) tactically deep, (b) dramatically compelling, that (c) just fundamentally worked so the GM could simply interpose obstacles between the PCs and their goals and “play to find out what happens” (No Force required).

 

[Neonchameleon]

What I don’t agree with (and I’m not sure where you stand on this because your post, while interesting and illuminating, altered the play premise I was intending), is that a game that declares Gamism, neutral/fair refereeing, and competitive integrity as it’s apex priority can be character-driven when the referee system subordinates the outcome of play from the participants will to their own will.

If we transliterated your post into a rule-set and then slapped some pithy, alternative construction of the paragraph directly above on the tin so as to convey what the game is meant to be about to purchasers...

Regardless of whether it’s a commercial success, that game is either (a) deceitful with respect to what it’s about or (b) the designers aren’t terribly competent.

The thing is that I'm not sure that an RPG that declares competitive integrity as its apex priority would ever make for a good RPG. Almost all PvE games have different mechanics for the two sides (and many of those that don't in theory do in practice). And with competitive games with a top down view, very limited time pressure, and strict integrity you're going to end up with a game that's as dry as chess. The more you add expression being directly meaningful and asymmetry to the game the more you weaken how fair the competition is.

This doesn't mean that you can't make almost fair competition a major part of a game - both 4e and oD&D do it in very different ways (challenging encounters with 4e and a push-your-luck style of dungeon crawling in oD&D) and I'd argue that having competition in whatever way makes the stakes and so the play much more meaningful and so more intense and evocative. But it's the competition and desire that matter far more than whether the competition is even claimed to be fair. And the competition and challenge being meaningful is far more important than whether it's actually fair.

I'm once again going to come back to professional wrestling to illustrate this. As mentioned, it was an open secret from the 1930s onwards (if not earlier) that pro wrestling was fake - but people still watched it despite many of them knowing that, and many of those who didn't remaining deliberately ignorant. That's because there were parts that were highly real; all those stunts they carry out are real and the whole thing is done live. They are combination actor/stuntmen playing the parts of athletes competing for a belt, and the whole thing is more real than most reality TV.

This degraded over the 90s (those who care can look up the Curtain Call - I'm not going to go into it) - and in 1997 came the big event that was the Montreal Screwjob in which, the official story is, that Bret Hart was told that he was going to retain his title going into the match despite the fact it was public knowledge he was going to the rival WCW soon while HBK and the referee were both told HBK were going to win - and that it would have to be done via a fast count. Anyway this happened and Bret Hart hit the roof, furious after the event and going to the papers with the story of how he was screwed out of his title.

You'd have thought that the open admission that pro wrestling was fake would have killed pro wrestling - but it did the opposite. Everyone knew that pro wrestlers were actors and stuntmen, but they now knew that pro wrestlers were actors and stuntmen who cared enough about the title to screw each other for real and it suddenly became about a thousand times more compelling. And the WWE became a reality TV show about a particularly muscular backstabbing acting troupe. The competition was rigged but it was there and taken seriously by everyone. Competitive integrity wasn't a thing (Mr. McMahon (the character) as the evil boss was the biggest villain the wrestling world had ever seen) but the WWE thrived by having a way it could have genuine competition and tangible examples of people truly caring even when the game was openly acknowledged to be utterly rigged.

Meanwhile the WWE's rival through the 90s, the WCW, put the biggest nail in their coffin two years later with the Fingerpoke of Doom. Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash were (in character) friends - and Nash held a championship Hogan wanted. So come the match Hogan poked Nash, Nash lay down for Hogan, Hogan "pinned" him, and match over. Along with any sort of possibility the wrestlers actually cared about the championship. So what were they doing there other than muscular pairs gymnastics? And if they didn't care about the prize why should the audience?

The WWE claims to be about wrestling, but since 1997 at the very latest anyone with a clue has known it really isn't. But it's at its best when they treat it as if it's about wrestling and winning the championship even if it's about actors playing those parts? Is this deceitful? No more than the briefcase in Pulp Fiction being deceitful when it was what everyone wanted but it was just a briefcase with a yellow light in it.

On the other hand (and this is turning into a ramble) RPGs need to show what they do on a meta level. You at least need to show a bit behind the curtain.

On the ... what am I? An octopus? It isn't remotely false to say that wrestlers want belts and championships and are competing to get them. The belt is respect, fame, and money. If you pitch pro wrestling as being about athletes training and competing to win championship belts every word of that is true. It's just the field of competition that's slightly different. Is this dishonest?

And I'm rambling and think I finished with my point several paragraphs back. But which parts of competition matter and what honesty in an artificial environment are is an interesting question.

(And no I didn't mean to imply that I dislike chess - just that it's dry and abstract compared to e.g. League of Legends or Smash Ultimate, or even any RPG).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

Good post @Neonchameleon

I don’t have time to reread and digest in full. Im confident that I need clarification and I’m confident that there is some daylight between us on some of that. When I get a chance to reread and gather my thoughts (late tonight or this weekend), I’ll get up a response.

To be honest, I feel that the primary subject matter of this thread is nearing resolution (and by resolution I mean stalemate). So I think the premise you’ve put forth (about competitive integrity in TTRPGs) is ripe for discussion.

I’d be curious what others think about your premise.