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

[innerdude]

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

Look, just to be perfectly clear:

• I've done semi-professional theater (i.e., I've actually been paid to act on stage). Granted, it was hardly a sum worth talking about, but nonetheless . . . .
• I've performed Shakespeare any number of times. Doing a convincing British accent is hard.
  • (For example: I love the V for Vendetta film. And the one thing that still pulls me out every time is that Natalie Portman's British accent is still just a tiny bit . . . off. It's just touch too pure, too affected to be totally convincing).
• I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who actually tries to act in character during roleplaying, or uses any or all voice characterization techniques to help them feel more immersed. I've done it myself any number of times.

The point that I agreed with from @chaochou is that characterization---no matter how well done or voice acted---does not inherently lead to a character-driven arc.

I've watched some Critical Role, and while I found it entertaining, I'm thinking of the one actor whose primary character interest always seems to be grog, and he voice acts that character as a big, dumb, lovable meathead.

Fun character. Easily pictured in context of the game world. But if the point is simply to "act out" by having your character speak English with a British / Scottish / Irish / German / Russian / Italian / Israeli / Jersey / Boston / Spanish accent, that may be fun, but if it's not backed up by an intent to have a character-driven arc, it's all just window dressing.

 

[Celebrim]

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...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.

Agreed.

Are they better at what they do than the best players I've worked with? Maybe. Is Matt better at what he does than I am? Maybe a little (it certainly helps that he can devote his full energy to it). Are they better entertainers? Certainly.

But they aren't so much better that what they do is out of reach of the average player. The real question is less can your table do what Critical Role does, than it is "Does your table even want to?" There is a big difference I think for most players between enjoying the game and treating the game like a craft to hone and improve in. Seeing the game as a craft to improve is may itself be a sort of aesthetic of play, and as such may not at all appeal to everyone.

But if you want to get there, or what to get to where the OP wants to get (which is a somewhat but not completely related goal), I don't think it's unobtainable.

 

[Manbearcat]

Can someone provide a link to this (I guess) infamous scene where the Critical Role GM and the player had this heist scene with the cupcake?

I'd like to view and do a post-mortem as it relates to this conversation.

 

[pemerton]

We developed characters with skills and advantages off 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.

The systems that some others have mentioned in this thread as relevant to the OP - to reiterate, BW, Sorcerer, DitV, etc - might be seen as adopting but formalising and prioritising this sort of approach.

But they often also reverse some of the direction of fit - so instead of the players feeling things out for the first few sessions to get a feel for the GM's priorities, the players establish priorities via the build and play of their characters and the GM feels those out and respond to them.

• 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.
  • <snip>
  • 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.
• 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.

That last dot point is absolutely true. As I said, the idea of "the adventure" has to go. Though I don't think it requires as great an abnegation on the GM's part as you suggest.

The first two (sub-)points, in my experience, are not as straightforward as you suggest. The X-Men are a team and yet have character arcs. It's not great literature, but it's certainly as good as I could ever aspire to at my table (none of us is a professional creator of fiction). A different model that might work for some tables is Doctor Who.

That's not to say that "the party" is mandatory. Plenty of RPGs eschew it. But it needn't be a total stumbling block.

The bit about screen-time is also less stark, I think. The real issue here is who is talking and interacting, at the table. There are ways of handling this so that it doesn't have to be much more brutal on the group activity than running around the table in a D&D-style combat round.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Critical Role, as far as I understand it, is a professional ensemble performance. I don't think it shows us much about how "ordinary" RPGers might go about achieving the sort of play @innerdude hs described.

I also don't think that D&D is especially relevant in this thread (which is in the General forum). For one thing the OP is not a D&D player, but rather prefers Savage Worlds and is curious about Burning Wheel. Secondly, D&D - at least in its 5e variant - has many mechanical limitations that get in the way of mechanically-driven character arc play; namely, it has no mechanics for player-imposed finality of resolution outside of combat.

I'm not 100% sure that I understand what the OP is talking about.

I don't know where exactly @innerdude is coming from

To me It seems fairly clear that innerdude is talking about the sort of play that results from systems like Apocalypse World, DitV, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, etc. Other systems (contemporary and classic) can also generate that sort of play, but the ones that have been talked about in this thread are expressly designed for it.

I say this because these systems, and other systems used in similar ways, are all about (to borrow from the OP) the actual mechanical interplay of rules . . . promot[ing] the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature so that a character materially change in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction.

Not only will some systems work better for some players (occasinally in surprising combinations), some players will deeply engage with their characters in any system, using whatever handles they can find in whatever system they're playing.

The OP doesn't talk about engaging with the character - what I referred to upthread as authenticity of performance. The OP talks about "character hook" mechanics (which would include Beliefs in Burning Wheel, Aspects in Fate, Bonds in Dungeon World, and of course many other versions in other systems) being contributors to the generation of character arcs that are the result of the actual mechanical processes of play. It's not about handles used to engage with characters but mechanical elements that inform the framing, the processes and outcomes of action resolution.

As I've already posted a couple of times, I don't think that those particular sorts of bells-and-whistles are crucial for what the OP is looking for. But there are certain things that are crucial. The most important of these is dropping the conceit of "the adventure" or "the story" - and replacing it with character-centred framing on the GM's part and openness to action declarations and resolution outcomes on everyone's part.

I'm not sure if gameplay mechanics are what you need to get to a character-driven experience.

<snip>

I think it is up to the DM to come up with a plot and npc's that the players can get emotionally invested in. But it is also up to the players to make that connection, and interact with the fiction.

If the GM is establishing the plot, I don't see how it is driven by the character as played by the player. You seem to be referring here to authentic performances ("making that connection") on the part of the players. Not to the mechanical interplay of rules producing engaging, dramatic character arcs.

 

[pemerton]

The point that I agreed with from @chaochou is that characterization---no matter how well done or voice acted---does not inherently lead to a character-driven arc.

Have you ever read Christopher Kubasik's extended essay "Interactive Toolkit"?

It's currently hosted on his "Play Sorcerer" blog but predates Sorcerer by several years - I think it's from the mid-90s.

Here is what he says about character-driven arcs and their relationship to characterisation:

Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake character for characterization.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By “seeing” how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.

But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.

Character is action. That’s a rule of thumb for plays and movies, and is valid as well for roleplaying games and story entertainments. This means that the best way to reveal your character is not through on an esoteric monologue about pipe and tobacco delivered by your character, but through your character’s actions.​

You might find some stuff in there quite useful, or at least interesting.

 

[Lanefan]

So what was at stake then?

Why does there have to be anything at stake?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Reading @Sadras ' quote again, I think it was the characters who were siblings, not the players.

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.

Or in a system where it's possible to shove the mechanics out of the way when required; because yes, in these situations mechanics of any kind are more often a hindrance or intrusion than a help.

 

[Lanefan]

Critical Role ...

I also don't think that D&D is especially relevant in this thread (which is in the General forum). For one thing the OP is not a D&D player, but rather prefers Savage Worlds and is curious about Burning Wheel.

Given that the vast majority of people in the hobby are playing D&D (mostly 5e) and thus - if they're reading this - will be trying to fit what's said into that paradigm, then D&D is always relevant.

Secondly, D&D - at least in its 5e variant - has many mechanical limitations that get in the way of mechanically-driven character arc play; namely, it has no mechanics for player-imposed finality of resolution outside of combat.

Doesn't make sense - you say it has mechanical limitations and then your example is a situation where is has no mechanics?

'No mechanics' is never a limitation; and in this case 'finality of resolution' doesn't sound like a good idea. In combat, yes, there's usually a finality - one side or combatant dies, or surrenders, or is made captive, whatever; the combat's done and in most cases it only has to be done once.

But in a character-based or social situation, unless a combat-worthy finality is somehow applied (e.g. one character charms or captures another) the situation is never truly finalized, and thus applying a finality mechanic seems...odd somehow.

For example, take some of the various discussions we've had on here in the past. None of those threads have to my knowledge been shut down by the mods (analagous to the DM applying a finality mechanic) which means they're all open to rebooting and review in the future - they're not final (despite our best attempts!).

Same is true of a diplomacy attempt - unlike a combat which when it's over it's done, a diplomacy attempt or in-character discussion (or argument!) is never really over as long as all participants remain in control of their own thoughts. People can have second thoughts, or realize they erred, or come up with alternative arguments, whatever; and applying finality mechanics just doesn't make sense from a pure roleplay point of view.

D&D is guilty of this with its diplomacy family of mechanics over various editions (yes, even all the way back to henches' morale and loyalty rules) - the mechanics insert themselves to try and finalize what would otherwise be ongoing and perhaps repeating roleplay.

As I've already posted a couple of times, I don't think that those particular sorts of bells-and-whistles are crucial for what the OP is looking for. But there are certain things that are crucial. The most important of these is dropping the conceit of "the adventure" or "the story" - and replacing it with character-centred framing on the GM's part and openness to action declarations and resolution outcomes on everyone's part.

It's not an either-or.

A character-driven arc - be it for an individual character or several interacting - can quite happily weave its way through and around a background or setting-based story and-or a series of adventures provided the DM is willing to allow the table-time for the character arc(s) to play out when required.

And this, I think, is where things fall apart at some tables: the DM (or some players) aren't willing to spend that time. They're not willing to allow @Sadras ' sibling PCs to spend an hour or so developing their arc, or my PC and a few others time to argue over how we intend to approach our post-adventuring political careers, or the Cavalier PCs time to participate in a jousting tournament (with all the attending social affairs) where results both social and field may affect their reputations.

In the three examples I give here the only place game mechanics need to appear at all would be for the Cavaliers, both to determine their jousting results (a variant on combat mechanics) and perhaps to determine any lasting effects on their reputations afterwards. Otherwise, it's all roleplay - so let it happen!

 

[Ovinomancer]

To have character arcs, the character must be at risk.

This doesn't mean that the character might die, or be hurt, or lose things, but instead that the fundamental nature of the character must be at risk. Something the character believes, or feels, or values as a core conceit must be at risk of being shown false, or different, or even validated through hardship. If you do not risk character, there's nothing that can change that isn't an arbitrary choice by the player or GM. And arbitrary change is fine, although it doesn't meet the desire of the OP to have games that involve character driven play.

I add my voice to those that say that acting is not necessary for character driven play. It's a method to feel connected to character, but isn't the only way nor always the best way. But, it doesn't improve the likelihood of character driven arcs, as you can act out a flat, unchanging character as well as a dynamic one -- the acting out doesn't change this.

I also disagree with @Celebrim that small groups are needed for character focus. Group size affects spotlight time, but doesn't really affect how well a character arc can be realized in play. As Colossus tells us, it's two or three moments, not sessions of attention.

Finally, on system, it matters but isn't definitive. D&D has no mechanics that puts character at risk, for instance, nor any means for a player to force resolution on an issue of character. That's not to say that D&D cannot do character, but that it moves into the realm of extra-ruleset agreement or fiat by player or GM. This makes character ad hoc, and thereby more unlikely to feature as an element of play outside of determined effort to just do it by the players. Other system put character at risk as a fundamental part of play, and provide mechanics that allow for resolution of such issues from both sides of the screen. This doesn't mean it works, but the system is at least attempting to make character a part of the process of play, and that helps.