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

[prabe]

Imagine that that you are playing, and at random moments, a 7 year old kid in the room blats out horrendous noise from a trumpet. It's probably really distracting. It probably puts you off your game, brings you out of the moment. That's what an ill-fitting ruleset, or one ill-designed for this purpose, can do to a player - be a horrible distraction.

Sure, but it might that that system doesn't work for that player. Another player may be able to work in that system without problems, and the player may be able to work in another system without problems. That's not to say that some systems aren't better-designed than others, just that there are personal preferences at play as well.

 

[lordabdul]

That's what an ill-fitting ruleset, or one ill-designed for this purpose, can do to a player - be a horrible distraction.

Not even counting the people who actually have a 7 year old kid running around the gaming table making horrendous noises from a trumpet (yes, many of us game with kids around at least occasionally)

 

[uzirath]

I know that some of my players for instance love systems with advantages/disadvantages (like GURPS or FATE and such), because they use these traits and rolls as a support for their roleplay, but I know that some of my other players see it totally the opposite way, as something that constrains and formalizes their roleplaying performance in a "crude" way, and that they feel gets in the way....

I've experienced this range with player preferences too. I once played in an innovative GURPS game with a bunch of hardcore method actor types that attempted to circumvent this to some degree. We developed characters with skills and advantages but left disadvantages and quirks blank for the first few sessions. Then, after experiencing the characters facing challenges (both internal and external), we added character elements that fit. It helped that the GM was completely willing to customize or invent new disads to fit the character concepts. This wouldn't work with every group, but it was a pretty fun way of going about it at this particular table.

In many ways, systems that formalize a character's traits ("who they are", as opposed to just "what they can do") actually help with character arcs because they almost always include mechanics for adding/removing traits during play (like "buying off" your drug addiction or kleptomania or selfishness or whatever), so they effectively promote character arcs, even if they do so in a way that some players will consider as clunky or as an "emotional barrier"...

I have also played at GURPS tables where official disadvantages were entirely optional. Players that found them cumbersome skipped them and roleplayed their characters as they saw fit. This worked well but required two things: a GM who was flexible about character point values, and players who were committed to roleplaying complex characters who didn't just choose system-optimal choices at every turn. While the latter would technically work in GURPS (no disads mean you have no mechanical limitations within the scope of your character's defined attributes and skills), it would depart from the culture of the table which was very much about flawed heroes.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Do remember that Critical Role is made up of professional actors - people who have specific talent, extensive training and experience in em6oting and acting in distracting situations. Saying, "Well, it can be done on Critical Role, so it can be done by anyone," simply is not true, and does a disservice to folks who are trying, but not succeeding, by blaming them for not being good enough.

That is not what was implied; that is what you inferred. Happens a lot around here, actually. It was meant to be a relatable point, but I see some people have different opinions about the show and what it represents, so apologies for bringing that up as an example.

My point still stands, however. It is quite possible, even if you're not a trained actor. That shouldn't even be a qualifier in this discussion, come to think of it. And my comment certainly wasn't intended that way. So again, inference just muddies the waters. :/

 

[Sadras]

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.

Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be independently of the development by the players of their characters.

For a long time I would have agreed with this point of view, but my players have taught me otherwise. I cannot claim to be a great DM or player, I try as best to provide reasonable/logical twists that surprise the players and engage the characters using as much of their backgroud they allow me to mold but the best dramatic arcs and character development have occured between party members, and sometimes independent of the main story.

Just this weekend I witnessed this - an incredible piece of invested roleplaying between two sibling PCs. This had all been pre-thought out by the players that at some point they would have an epic argument about their relationship and their "shared" beliefs that would effectively forever change them and their relationship.

I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.

At the end of it, I felt that I should have given them xps or some reward for this amazing piece of roleplaying. I'm still thinking about it...

It is not the system, but the players. I imagine some systems assist with this - but a good roleplayer, is a good roleplayer - despite any system.

EDIT: Not to labour too much on this point, but I'm amazed how some players are able to weave invested storylines through the main arc. Essentially I'm providing them material which I didn't even know I was. I'd be happy to provide examples of this in PM.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, but I don't believe he (we) should limit ourselves by thinking that the mechanics of the game should inhibit our ability and imagination. A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, Critical Role has proven that the system is not a barrier.

Could you describe in 5 bullet points the way that you feel this show has (a) characters who have "dramatic arcs with teeth", (b) of which the consequence on play is that they change viscerally in such ways that both their outlook and the attendant suite of action declarations by the player playing them is fundamentally changed in terms of both availability and effectiveness (meaning their decision-tree is fundamentally changed due to physical/emotional/social/ethical alterations to their characters). And this means CONSISTENTLY; meaning, they can't just opt-out of this change in disposition. If they (the player) can opt out, its not fundamental...its just characterization. Nothing more.

I think that is a big difference between myself and you and others that agree with you.

The ability to opt-out through their own agency and/or the ability for the GM to curate the experience so either (a) they never have to opt-in and/or (b) they can eventually opt-out at GM discretion means that its not "visceral change with teeth." Its just characterization and emoting. Skillful, sure...but that isn't what @innerdude is looking for (I don't think).

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but it might that that system doesn't work for that player.

Yes. People are individuals. There is no system that wil be perfect for everyone. But, we can consider design elements that tend to work for more people ...

Not even counting the people who actually have a 7 year old kid running around the gaming table making horrendous noises from a trumpet (yes, many of us game with kids around at least occasionally)

Yep. And, honestly, rare indeed is the person who, on their leisure time, can just totoally ignore the real world. Like, if you have a headache, or work has been stressful this week, or what have you. It pays to check in with yourself before you begin play, and note how you are really feeling, so you can take it into account.

That is not what was implied; that is what you inferred. Happens a lot around here, actually.

With all due respect... it may not have been intended, but the inferred/implied thing is a dodge. You said a thing. This is how it came across. If you want to quibble over how far I have to stretch to get from, "Critical Role has proven system is not a barrier," to what I raised, we can do that. I don't think it would be constructive.

Critical Role demonstrates that some people may be able to overcome system barriers - not that system is no barrier at all to anyone.

 

[chaochou]

I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.

So what was at stake then?

EDIT: Not to labour too much on this point, but I'm amazed how some players are able to weave invested storylines through the main arc.

If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.

What you're describing is players adding thespian touches to GM-driven play.

 

[Umbran]

If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.

Well, hold on there a minute...

What constitutes the "main arc"? I would take that to be roughly the same question as, "What is this novel about?"

Two people could see read/watch the same story - one takes it to be horror, the other takes it to be a teen-relationship drama. And, they can both be right.

What matters is what the participants think is the main arc. If they feel they have an arc of personal development going on in an action-adventure backdrop, and they drive the things that matters to them, that's perfectly reasonable character-driven play.

 

[prabe]

So what was at stake then?



If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.

What you're describing is players adding thespian touches to GM-driven play.

Who said there had to be exactly one main arc? There can be more than one arc happening in parallel. There can also be multiple arcs happening in sequence (which is probably more common, certainly more common in my games), with the possibility of overlap around the edges.

I think @Umbran has at least a portion of the right of things as well, in that "main arc" may well in in the eye of the beholder.