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

[innerdude]

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.

...snip...

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.

Had to comment here, as I've been following the thread closely since I wrote the OP, but haven't replied to anything in particular since.

At first glance, this would be the type of thing I'm talking about---a conscious decision made by the players to have some kind of internalized character stakes, and to make those internalized stakes become a real part of the narrative/fiction.

But part of me is feeling unsure if this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for. As I analyzed this, several thoughts came to mind:

• It's very cool that this was purely player-driven . . . but would it have been better if the players and GM had been collaborating to have this kind of experience all along? Would the rest of the players at the table been as equally invested and enjoyed such a thing had they known it was an available avenue of player agency?
• Is it even possible for this type of thing to be GM-led, or GM-guided? Or is this something that the GM cannot and should not try to artificially build or constrain?
• While this type of interaction could happen in any system, there are definite constraints in the core conceits of stereotypical fantasy roleplaying that would make sustaining this kind of activity difficult.
  • The idea that you have to have a "party", and that the "party" is supposed to stick together will quickly become a sticking point. In real life, when we as people begin to have divergent worldviews, or changing allegiances due to new life perspectives, we tend to change who we spend our time with. Truly character-driven play is going to be nigh impossible if the primary goal of the game is for "the party to stick together, because without you we can't defeat the big baddie, and no, I don't really care if your character would actually be involved or not. Figure out a viable reason for your character to do what the party is doing!" For character driven play, you have to accept the reality that the party is going to have to focus on character-driven needs. Otherwise, just like real life, the most "realistic" thing for a character to do might be to leave the party.
  • This goes back to @Celebrim's assertion that this kind of play is exceedingly difficult with a large cast of PCs. I'm guessing the most PCs you could have in a party to come even close to doing this kind of thing long term would be 3.
  • To really accomplish this kind of thing consistently, you have to be willing to accept as players that there's going to be a lot more "split screen" / non-focus time on your character. You have to be willing to let other people's characters "go where their desires take them," and sometimes you're going to just be the tag-along.
• For this kind of interplay to be more than just an incidental, one-off experience, the GM must be willing to let go of any notion of "where the game is supposed to go." It would require extreme flexibility and willingness on the part of the GM to truly go along with the player/character choices to their endpoint.

 

[chaochou]

What matters is what the participants think is the main arc.

Not if you're discussing the techniques to get somewhere, it isn't. If you want to learn the techniques of character-driven play it isn't enough to describe a game where the players are happy emoting their way along a GM railroad. That's a pure cop-out.

The OP asks for character-driven play techniques and what he's getting is advice for GM plots, 1,500 word backstory and conflict-less thespianiasm. None of which are even remotely good techniques for what he's requested.

 

[innerdude]

If you want to learn the techniques of character-driven play it isn't enough to describe a game where the players are happy emoting their way along a GM railroad. That's a pure cop-out.

Absolutely this. Flaffing about spouting Shakespearean witticisms in a faux-British accent (I'm American) isn't remotely the same as creating a substantive, character-driven arc. (No offence intended to any Brits or Shakespeare fans on the board! I'm a regular attendee of our state's renowned Shakespearean festival.)

 

[billd91]

You seem to be assuming D&D here. Sit around the table playing (say) Cthulhu Dark or Prince Valiant or even Classic Traveller and, at least in my experience, this won't happen.

But with Classic Traveller (or any of the Traveller iterations), it can often bog down in determining what systems to head to for speculative trade runs. So it's not like D&D is the only game that players can bog down into a mode of play that isn't conducive to character development driven play.

 

[prabe]

Absolutely this. Flaffing about spouting Shakespearean witticisms in a faux-British accent (I'm American) isn't remotely the same as creating a substantive, character-driven arc. (No offence intended to any Brits or Shakespeare fans on the board! I'm a regular attendee of our state's renowned Shakespearean festival.)

So, is the priority (or at least what's missing) character development? That's not the same thing as thespianism, no argument there.

It seems as though what you're looking for is something emergent from a collaboration between the GM and the players. Yes, you probably need a smallish table, but I've seen good character play at large ones. There are some systems that claim to encourage such play, but there are players who find they get in the way more than they help. Some people find that knowing what happened to the character/s before the game began is helpful, others don't, and there's a spectrum of preferences.

So, people matter more than game rules, I think. It doesn't seem there's much more to pull out of this in the way of anything like a consensus.

 

[Umbran]

Absolutely this. Flaffing about spouting Shakespearean witticisms in a faux-British accent (I'm American) isn't remotely the same as creating a substantive, character-driven arc.

I wonder who said anything about Shakespeare and faux-British accents, other than you?

A main arc of a story could be about a friendship forming, an apparent betrayal, and the resulting reformation of that friendship.. or lack of same. Perfectly comulent arc... and it can happen within the context of virtually any action-adventure story ever written, without any input from the GM.

This is not to say that a GM cannot aid and abet character-driven play. But you absolutely cannot do so if you don't recognize the domain the players wish to have that arc within. The Players are driving this, by definition. You cannot support them along the road if you do not know what road they are on!

So, again - what matters first is what the players think or want the main arc to be.

 

[billd91]

Do remember that Critical Role is made up of professional actors - people who have specific talent, extensive training and experience in emoting 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 seems to be putting the Critical Role players up on a pretty high pedestal, when what they do is far closer to being in reach than you imply. Aside from their skill with different voice characterizations, which really is dependent on their talent and training, there's really not that much they do that I haven't seen around various gaming tables for the last 40 years. They're just a bit better at it, but not in an unobtainable way if that's really the style of play you like to engage in.

Honestly, there are a lot of people around here who let their prejudices and assumptions about Critical Role and the people involved run away with them, for good and bad, which I think does the show a massive disservice.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Siblings are the best, especially if both retain their inclination to play make believe with all the enthusiasm of children. One of the most fun I've ever had as a DM was watching a brother and sister just run with intraparty RP, basically knocking ten years off their life experience and be kids again.

I can barely imagine how great it would be for them to combine that authentic and natural interplay, with the cunning and skill of an experienced RPer taking cues from their fellow players.

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.

I often feel that attempts to put a system around this just get in the way, so that counter-intuitively, some of the best RP comes out of systems that don't mechanically support it at all. I mean, really, we are talking about an experience that doesn't have much to do with the "game" part of RPG.

Right now there is a lot of buzz around Laura Bailey's carefully constructed con with the cupcake on Critical Role, and how solid that scene is from an RP/story moment. What does it really have to do with system?

I still insist that the aesthetic of play a table has in a given moment has vastly more to do with how they think about playing a game and the processes of play that they are using (for example, the first person dialogue between Laura and Matt as the primary scene resolution), than it has to do with mere rules.

 

[billd91]

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 (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.

Depends on how you approach it. If the GM has written various story threads, including what would happen if the PCs do not interact with them, but leaves it up to the PCs how or even whether they will engage with them and has the various threads react to the actions and choices of the PCs, then I don't see how this makes delivering the sort of play the OP is talking about impossible... or even harder for that matter.

One of the GMs I play with maintains a number of small notebooks. Each one covers various story threads in his campaign setting - some involving the overall politics of the empire and succession, some the prominent arcane guilds, some the relations between the human empire and the humanoid nations, etc. In the course of a campaign with a new set of players and PCs, some of those notebooks and their story threads will be active in an area and may form initial hooks bringing the PCs together for an initial story, but the introduction of new notebooks or alternative notebooks will depend on what the PCs are doing, where they're going, how they're getting involved (or not getting involved) in the stories inherent to those notebooks. And he's constantly updating them with the implications of events the PCs trigger. It seems to me that the players have plenty of options to really explore their PCs' inner motivations, adapt them, and change them based on how the game is developing - if that's what they choose to do.
And it's all using the D&D rules - with version in 3e and 5e.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*