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

[pemerton]

I find this incredibly difficult to imagine play out simply on mechanics only because I'd say the GM would have likely already decided or at the very least thought of this before play and could use mechanics, whether successes or failures, to push play towards the desired reveal.

So how do mechanics in this instance help or change whether it was mechanics that revealed it or the DM via the fiction. To me it looks like mechanics are but an illusion of a prethought out idea. What am I missing?

I'm not sure what you have in mind by mechanics. What @Numidius describes a post or two below yours is the sort of thing I have in mind - as rolls fail or succeed the GM narrates (ie establishes and set out) consequences, which can include revelations of unwelcome truths. These are guided by the relevant system considerations (eg in Burning Wheel the GM should have regard to the intent of the failed task as well as the Beliefs and Instincts of the character; in AW the GM should make the character's lives interesting make Apocalypse World seem real, and remain faithful to the established fiction.

So in these systems, the werewolf thing (or the "I am your father" thing) wouldn't come from nowhere. It would develop over a series of situations, maybe as a result of snowballing failures, maybe as a result of iterating failures and successes.

In the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player we went to the Tower of Evard because my knight PC's wizard offsider wanted to check it out (mechanically: she succeeded on a Great Masters-wise check to correctly recall the location of Evard's tower in the Pomarj; so the GM had to introduce it into the fiction). When we got there we fought a demon, which didn't go to well but did earn my PC a new infamous reputation in hell as an Intransigent Demon Foe. Then, checking out Evard's tower, a result of a check (the mechanical and full framing details now escape me) resulted in my PC finding old letters that seemed to imply that Evard, the demon summoner (it seems) is my mother's father. (My relationship with my mother and my Belief about my family are elements of my PC build.) That's an unhappy revelation - an unwelcome truth in AW terms. I don't know how much the GM anticipated something along those lines, but he can't have planned anything about Evard too far ahead given that Evard and his tower were only introduced as elements in the shared fiction because of a successful check made for an offsider whom I generally control and which on this occasion I declared and rolled.

This sort of thing would, in my view, be an instance of the sort of mechanics-drive-character-arc thaat @innerdude is talking about. (And using his holy grail system, Burning Wheel!)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I find this incredibly difficult to imagine play out simply on mechanics only because I'd say the GM would have likely already decided or at the very least thought of this before play and could use mechanics, whether successes or failures, to push play towards the desired reveal.

So how do mechanics in this instance help or change whether it was mechanics that revealed it or the DM via the fiction. To me it looks like mechanics are but an illusion of a prethought out idea. What am I missing?

The use of mechanics that will result no matter what in the outcome the GM wants are uses of Force. In every game I'm aware of, the rules say mechanics are used to determine the success or failure of a PC action. If that result is just what the GM wants it to be, then, yes, your correct that it doesn't matter how the GM tells the players what idea the GM has and it doesn't really matter what the players try to have their PCs do. This is gamestate is often referred to as a railroad.

The other side of the coin is that the GM has no agenda for play, and is engaged in play to find out what happens. Blades in the Dark is the version of this play that I'm most familiar with, so I keep using it as an example. In Blades play, there is no 'next thing' in the GM's head. The core concept of the game is that the PCs are a crew of criminals in the haunted city of Duskvol. The players start a session of play by declaring what score they want -- who the target is, what the objective is, and how they'll start the score, ie, the initial fictional framing of the attempt. The GM has no part in this, they have to take what's presented to them and go. Then, the mechanics are engaged for the initial position of the game, the Engagement roll. This can be good, bad, or both. After the roll, the GM's job is to frame a scene involving all of the factors of the score and the engagement roll that puts the players in a spot so that play can begin. The players react to being in a spot by declaring actions, which either work or generate a roll. The outcome of the roll (good, bad, both) determines what constraints are on the GM for advancing the result. The game is built for both good and bad to be the most common outcome, leading to increasing complications for the PCs (the snowball) which drives the action forward. The GM is improvising in small chunks with tight constraints, so it's not really very hard to follow the lead of the game. It also provides good recommendations and guidelines for play that, if embraced, make Blades one of the least burdensome on the GM games I've played.

 

[Sadras]

In the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player we went to the Tower of Evard because my knight PC's wizard offsider wanted to check it out (mechanically: she succeeded on a Great Masters-wise check to correctly recall the location of Evard's tower in the Pomarj; so the GM had to introduce it into the fiction). When we got there we fought a demon, which didn't go to well but did earn my PC a new infamous reputation in hell as an Intransigent Demon Foe. Then, checking out Evard's tower, a result of a check (the mechanical and full framing details now escape me) resulted in my PC finding old letters that seemed to imply that Evard, the demon summoner (it seems) is my mother's father. (My relationship with my mother and my Belief about my family are elements of my PC build.) That's an unhappy revelation - an unwelcome truth in AW terms. I don't know how much the GM anticipated something along those lines, but he can't have planned anything about Evard too far ahead given that Evard and his tower were only introduced as elements in the shared fiction because of a successful check made for an offsider whom I generally control and which on this occasion I declared and rolled.

If I had to summarise this rather crudely, player rolls for a desired location (presumably to learn more about/find Evard) which becomes true in the fiction. DM introduces combat encounter at new location. Search ensues (unknown if successful or failure), which results in DM introducing content. I'm not convinced, from this example, that this idea wasn't prethought by the DM - whether it was Evard or someone else doesn't matter since all they needed to be established was that your mother's father was a demon summoner - that is it.

How does the unhappy truth change your character mechanically?

This sort of thing would, in my view, be an instance of the sort of mechanics-drive-character-arc thaat @innerdude is talking about. (And using his holy grail system, Burning Wheel!)

I find that a more apt description, mechanics-driven-character arc/play rather than the character driven play.

 

[Lanefan]

One of my gaming groups tends to do Adventure Paths, and I hate them (the adventures; I love the people). There's nothing to engage with but the grind toward the Big Climax. I never conceive of the character as anything other than a bundle of mechanics. I don't care if we succeed at the Final Boss Fight. I actually kinda hope we don't, because I don't think the world in the Adventure Path is worth saving.

I believe we are very much on the same page here, possibly the same paragraph.

APs and similar structures can be fine if they're part of a bigger campaign; they then become in effect just one great big adventure broken into bite-size bits, and there's always the sense that the party can drop it and go do something else if so desired.

But a single AP as the entire campaign? No thanks.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.

BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth

 

[Lanefan]

In the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player we went to the Tower of Evard because my knight PC's wizard offsider wanted to check it out (mechanically: she succeeded on a Great Masters-wise check to correctly recall the location of Evard's tower in the Pomarj; so the GM had to introduce it into the fiction). When we got there we fought a demon, which didn't go to well but did earn my PC a new infamous reputation in hell as an Intransigent Demon Foe. Then, checking out Evard's tower, a result of a check (the mechanical and full framing details now escape me) resulted in my PC finding old letters that seemed to imply that Evard, the demon summoner (it seems) is my mother's father. (My relationship with my mother and my Belief about my family are elements of my PC build.) That's an unhappy revelation - an unwelcome truth in AW terms. I don't know how much the GM anticipated something along those lines, but he can't have planned anything about Evard too far ahead given that Evard and his tower were only introduced as elements in the shared fiction because of a successful check made for an offsider whom I generally control and which on this occasion I declared and rolled.

To riff off this example for a moment if I may, each GM's approach is going to be a bit different in terms of on-the-fly prep.

I know were I the GM here and the party decided to go to Evard's Tower (or some other on-a-whim location that hadn't ever come up before in the game), all I'd be thinking about whenever I had a spare moment during the session would be "what if"s. What are they most likely to do, and of those what are the possible results if they do x, y, z, or a. Also I'll consider even more basic things such as how many floors does it have, is there a dungeon or basement below, what condition is it all in, and so forth.

That way, when they get there and start interacting with the place I've half a clue in my own mind about some basics and thus don't trip myself up in contradictions - which I'm prone to do otherwise, and which I see as a rather unforgivable GM sin - and am also more likely to be able to react confidently to what they do as I've already thought it through even if only briefly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.

BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth

This is a good point. I don't think that any of the processes in BitD are free of GM judgment.....I think they require a good deal of it. But there are limitations in place that help guide that judgment, and I think those are a deterrent to the kind of Force in question.

The mechanics of the game help guide the GMs judgment. It's not simply left entirely up the GM.

I think in most games, the fiction of the game is likely to serve as a guide of how things go; the GM will make decisions based on how things were in the fiction. This is true of just about any game. With BitD, there are also some mechanics in place to decide such consequences and their severity.

So there are kind of two layers of constraint, in that sense, if we think of the fiction as constraining the GM's judgment (which I think we likely all would...I hope? ).

I hope that's clear. I didn't want to type up an overly long example.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.

BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth

Yea, I think it's enough to say that the GM doesn't have any specific outcome in mind when framing the encounter to call it "Force-free". Trying to get to the point where the GM doesn't have any sort of subconscious bias or preference towards any outcome, where the GM is a perfectly neutral arbiter, is probably a fool's errand. Honestly, I don't think it sounds like a particularly fun endpoint even if it was possible; the GM should end up as a story contributer even if they're not pushing to a particular goal in a Force-free game.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is a good point. I don't think that any of the processes in BitD are free of GM judgment.....I think they require a good deal of it. But there are limitations in place that help guide that judgment, and I think those are a deterrent to the kind of Force in question.

The mechanics of the game help guide the GMs judgment. It's not simply left entirely up the GM.

I think in most games, the fiction of the game is likely to serve as a guide of how things go; the GM will make decisions based on how things were in the fiction. This is true of just about any game. With BitD, there are also some mechanics in place to decide such consequences and their severity.

So there are kind of two layers of constraint, in that sense, if we think of the fiction as constraining the GM's judgment (which I think we likely all would...I hope? ).

I hope that's clear. I didn't want to type up an overly long example.

I'd agree with you, and with @TwoSix. I wasn't suggesting that there aren't limitations in place - different systems have all manner of rules, spoken and unspoken that are designed to limit or guide GM judgement. However, what is the case is that judgement on the part of the GM, agency if you will, or force, exists in every game at every table. It's also true that the extent to which a given GM conforms to those rules varies by GM and doesn't necessarily conform to the intent of the rules set. I'd like to get past the ephemeral fantasy of the entirely impartial GM because I think it makes talking about what matters a lot more difficult. What matters is the nature of the limitations on GM judgment, and I would submit that the nature of the judgment and what limitations apply are more a factor of the actual GM then of the rules set in question, however much the choice of system might betray a certain leaning one way or the other when it comes to ideas of force and agency.

 

[prabe]

Yea, I think it's enough to say that the GM doesn't have any specific outcome in mind when framing the encounter to call it "Force-free". Trying to get to the point where the GM doesn't have any sort of subconscious bias or preference towards any outcome, where the GM is a perfectly neutral arbiter, is probably a fool's errand. Honestly, I don't think it sounds like a particularly fun endpoint even if it was possible; the GM should end up as a story contributer even if they're not pushing to a particular goal in a Force-free game.

I tend to concur with the two main points, here. If the GM has no deep-seated preference but is using their judgment in good faith, it's hard to exactly call it "Force." In my experience, this comes up in social encounters in game systems that don't have rules or mechanics for determination based on, e.g., a die roll. Or if a GM is trying to use something like the Passive Skills mechanic that is implicit in D&D 5E (to pick something I tend to do, in a system I know pretty well). I also think the GM can legitimately expect to be contributing to the story that emerges at the table, even if there's not a specific intent for the story to go a specific place.