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

[aramis erak]

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.

That is not a proof the system isn't a barrier. It is only proof that it can be done despite the barriers the system places.

 

[pemerton]

I think @Ovinomancer's comment about putting the character at risk is highly apposite.

There are varying degrees of risk - Ron Edwards says some helpful stuff about this, with reference to various RPG systems, in his original essay on character-driven play.

John Harper - the designer of BitD - has said somewhere (@Campbell will know where) that we should treat our characters like stolen cars. Which is to say, we take them out for a pretty exciting spin and don't worry if we crash them!

This can be hard for RPGers who are used to cherishing their PCs. And sometimes, at least in some groups, even if we put the instinct-to-protect aside, there may not be the appetite for deeply moving or confronting character-driven play.

In my own group, most of the time most of the character arcs are happening at a lighter level than (say, and to stick to superhero comic comparisons) Frank Miller's Born Again arc for Daredevil. We're playing matinee melodrama at best. (See eg the post upthread about the Nightcrawler arc. Or check some of my Prince Valiant actual play threads.) The systems we use are generally light in tone also - MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic and Prince Valiant. Burning Wheel is more hefty both in system and in degree of risk, but for those reasons some in my group prefer the lighter games.

I also think risk to the character and system are connected, but it doesn't have to be via character-oriented mechanics. This is where I think finality of player-initiated resolution is crucial. To go back to Nightcrawler - in that system NIghtcrawler's player initiated various actions which placed effects (from memory, infatuation-oriented complications) on the woman Nightcrawler was romancing. This was what enabled him (i) to successfully woo her, and then (ii) to ruthlessly abandon her. If those actions had failed, then the character arc would have gone differently - eg the character couldn't have emerged with the same externally-validated self-image as a wooer and user of others.

The point of the example is to suggest that good faith GM framing that follows the fiction combined with finality of player-initiated resolution and good faith GM narration of consequences can go a long way to establishing character-driven play independent of particular character-focused mechanics like Beliefs, Aspects etc. And conversely, without them - eg if all finality is just a matter of GM fiat, and/or consequences are established without good-faith regard to actual outcomes of player-initiated actions - then I don't think character-driven RPGing is possible. (Of course there could still be authentic player performance - "emoting" and "thespianism" I think are other terms that have been used upthread - within the confines of the GM-authored story.)

 

[Jacob Lewis]

That is not a proof the system isn't a barrier. It is only proof that it can be done despite the barriers the system places.

I can accept that amended statement, though it makes no difference to me. If barriers can be overcome, then they are no longer barriers.

To anyone still reading: This thread has been a steady stream of assumptions and barriers. It confuses and saddens me because people are being told that they are beholden to their own self-imposed limitations while blaming everything else around them. You don't need to be a trained actor or a skilled thespian to roleplay. A system does not require rules and mechanics to sanctify your exposition or provide you with further motives or risks. And you certainly don't need a bunch of random people on the internet telling everyone what other people say, think, or imply without daring to make an opinion on their own.

Critical Role was just an example. One that is accessible and familiar to most here, even if only in name. You could do worse than observe what a group of "professionals" do and how you might do things differently to achieve your goals. I could point to my own games and characters, except I don't have any videos, or a long-time group of trained actor friends, or whatever excuse for a qualification that people seem to think they lack in order to elevate your games.

What you really need is a group of players and a GM you can trust. That is the secret to why Critical Role works, and why my games work. I can run a published adventure and still make every player feel like it was written for their characters. Why? Because I talk with them, figure out what they want from the game, and work with their creation to make sure they have the best possible chance to experience an outcome that will satisfy them.

In other words, I ask for their trust. Plain and simple. Anyone can do that for any game. If they really wanted it.

Or just keep making excuses instead of solutions. I'm off to find a more productive, or at least a more fun discussion now.

 

[aramis erak]

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.
[...]

• 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?

Some of each.
The GM can lead it, provided the players give a small number of elements about which they and their character care, and they and the GM agree to have that be a functional element in the ongoing story.

The thing is, the players also need to be on board, and no one should have a clear answer to "where is it going?" That answer needs to evolve.

• 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.

Most genres can support a party mentality; a few absolutely demand it in ways even D&D doesn't. (EG: military and paramilitary settings, including Star Trek, Police, Leverage, Alien). This doesn't preclude immersive character drama, even tho' there is a GM mission...

It just means the missions have to allow for a "B" plot. (Think how DS9 or Babylon 5, or even Xena always had elements of ongoing coupled with "problem of the week." And that B plot needs to be relevant overall.

• 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.

Not entirely. He just has to be willing to let characters have meaningful encounters with meaningful choices in them that help define/redefine the character and their beliefs. Part of this can be player established backstory characters, but it works best if they aren't overly detailed, so the GM has wiggle room to add backstory.

There can even be a campaign Macguffin (tvtropes link). Ideally, the Macguffin only gets found when the campaign has had a good run, and people are satisfied that their characters have reached some state... one last struggle/battle/social-confrontation, and then a narration of their retirement... or funerals... and bragging rights.

The thing the GM can't be doing is dictating how the character feels, nor boxing them into "one correct choice"...

It also helps if recurrent NPCs have more than one agenda item each - in one Traveller campaign, I kept foreshadowing the helpful SNCO's agenda — getting his family out of the Concordat — and when they finally did get to a habitable world, he stole the ship's boat and the missiles for the missile launcher.... I've never so surprised a group... but they also realized that it had been foreshadowed. It wasn't a "fixed element"; it was a "when this situation happens unless"... the unless being the PC's having realized he wanted out and willingly letting him and his family off... but they hadn't paid attention. That same campaign had an NPC-PC love affair... with a "not unhappy" ending, involving a couple of retirement salaries and a sailboat... It wasn't something I set out as a GM, but a response to a player deciding to engage with a (previously) minor NPC command grade officer.... the player played it for a romance story with lots of fade to black.

The reasons for this being pointed out is that there was a kind of "timer" on that campaign. The PC's were on a scientific expedition to test, refine, and rebuild a particular tech item (a J2 drive). I set some science breakpoints, and each tweak in the field was potential to each some; after enough, they had to return to build the new revision, and each revision was closer to reliable.. Other than that, there was no set plot. It was all player driven, and all the players selected character goals, and played them, and we all knew each other's main plot goals... but each player had a second goal, shared only with me. To allow those character driven elements, I merely needed to introduce suitable obstacles relevant to it. Such as how do you prepare for a 6 month deployment with the new GF? (Answer I expected was trading momentos... answer chosen by the player was to see if the GF would like to be transferred aboard. I made a suitable reaction roll, and she joined the crew...)

The most important element is creating encounters, not outcomes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that meaningful character development is very possible in RPGs. I think there are many factors that will either increase or decrease the likelihood of it in any given game.

The participants. The GM and the players are all a big factor here. The players likely will have to come up with some kind of goal or challenge for their PC. Very likely more than one. The GM then has to recognize these goals and help bring it into play in a meaningful way. Having goals that are somehow in opposition is an easy way to challenge PCs; to gain one, another must be lost. These things need to be meaningful, though.

I think that mechanics can be huge in this area. Yes, such play can be achieved with a game that has no such mechanics (or even mechanics that run counter to this goal). But for games designed to promote this kind of play, looking at their mechanics can be enlightening. Most fundamentally, how does the game reward the player? Usually some kind of XP system. Is it about GP gained? Monsters killed? Promoting a cause or belief? These things absolutely influence the kind of play a system will deliver by default. How are characters generated? What constraints are placed on that process? What elements constitute a character? All of this meaningfully shapes play. If a game has no mechanic or even a spot on a character sheet to write down “what is most important to this character?” then it doesn’t seem all that important to the game. And yet that kind of thing is far more essential to character driven play than any stat or skill or class.

Finally, I think the idea of surrender is important. This relates to Ovinomancer’s discussion of risk above. I think that we as players have to be willing to give up some amount of authority on our characters in play in order for their to be meaningful growth. We have to actively move away from the idea of “my character is mine, and all of it is up to me”. We have to leave major decision points up to chance and find them through play. This is where the other elements tie together.

If I intro an ideal for my PC, and then the GM beings it up in play, and there are mechanics that put that ideal to the test in some way, I don’t necessarily get to decide the outcome. We need to give up that ownership a bit in order to be able to risk anything that we’ve established about our characters.

Otherwise, there’s no loss or gain for the player, there’s just a decision they make between A or B. I think it has to work that I as a player say my character is A, and then that is challenged through play by the GM (and/or other players), so now it is a question of can my character remain A, and we resolve that with the actual chance that my character could become B.

Players and GMs can do this kind of stuff in any game, but it’s far more common and formalized in some games.

 

[aramis erak]

I can accept that amended statement, though it makes no difference to me. If barriers can be overcome, then they are no longer barriers.

That's probably the most disingenuous thing I've seen this year.

Just because a fence can be climbed doesn't mean it's not a barrier. It makes crossing from one side to the other harder whether or not one knows how to climb it or vault it. If it weren't there, no climbing nor vaulting is needed. If it is there, it can be climbed, it can be cut through, but it's still a barrier.

 

[Weiley31]

Always make sure you have key plot beats down at certain moments.

And make sure you have the cutscenes happen at the key points.

Oh snap, that was a lucky headshot on the BBEG, guess that's the end of that Campai-camera angle sharply goes to the close up of the BBEG who was able to dodge at the last second as the bullet grazes his cheek, then spins around with the momentum to recover. Then he uses magic to make the air dense, causing all physical projectile range attacks to suffer auto disadvantage

 

[Imaculata]

I try to not have cut scenes at all. If any cinematic event needs to occur, it will do so naturally. My campaigns aren't a movie, nor are they a book. I can put all the pieces in place for something memorable, but ultimately it is the players that make those moments happen... or they don't make them happen at all.

For conveying important plot points, I simply have npc's show up and relay that information to the players. The moments where I do need to describe a big scene, I try to not sideline the players. They can interrupt me at any time, and react to what I'm describing to them.

If I want a final confrontation with a big bad to take place, I don't put him on the stage until I feel the moment is right, and then let it play out. I make no assumptions regarding how the players will solve a particular obstacle, but I try to prepare for the most likely options. And I try to make sure that the plot does not hinge entirely on any one villain.

But when I set up an important moment in the plot, I try to make sure there are some unexpected twists along the way, as well as some red herrings, and a proper set up befor the big reveal. The more the players get used to your style of storytelling however, the harder it can become to still surprise them. They will eventually start second guessing your twists.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

That's probably the most disingenuous thing I've seen this year.

Just because a fence can be climbed doesn't mean it's not a barrier. It makes crossing from one side to the other harder whether or not one knows how to climb it or vault it. If it weren't there, no climbing nor vaulting is needed. If it is there, it can be climbed, it can be cut through, but it's still a barrier.

My definition of a barrier is something that prevents your passage. A fence you cannot climb, tear down, or get around is a barrier. Maybe you don't see a way to climb over it or feel you are capable enough to try. But then you see someone else like you climb it. Do you think you can try it then, or is it still an impassable barrier for you? More importantly, does it still look like a barrier once you get over to the other side?

Also, it's only February. Plenty of year left to get offended by people trying to get you over a fence.

 

[aramis erak]

@Jacob Lewis redefinition fallacy detected.