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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

While there's no right answer, a question might narrow down what'd work for the querent: "What do you find to be more of a stumbling-block, rules or the absence or rules?" The question might need re-phrasing, depending.

I've mentioned something a lot as of late (when I've actually posted over the last few years...which is in spurts...and not much overall...so I guess you would have to tie the thread together over that incoherent long haul) that I think has a lot of explanatory power as to why these discussions can be difficult.

This question you've posed above seems to presuppose something about TTRPGs:

Game systems are discrete tool-kits meant to be deeply curated, to taste, mixed/matched in a modular fashion by x (typically the GM, but sometimes the group).

This zeitgeist seems to be so deeply embedded in the D&D cultural fabric that people just take it for granted that "this is the way, the one truth."

Game systems that are focused or somewhat resistant to hacking become anathema.

There is an alternative:

Game systems are a synthesis of rules, procedures, and principles, the collective of which is holistically bound to an ethos/premise of play.

Your question becomes less/more relevant/fundamentally different with respect to each starting position.

At its core, these two ideas are the yin and yang of the "sum of its parts" concept.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

I've mentioned something a lot as of late (when I've actually posted over the last few years...which is in spurts...and not much overall...so I guess you would have to tie the thread together over that incoherent long haul) that I think has a lot of explanatory power as to why these discussions can be difficult.

This question you've posed above seems to presuppose something about TTRPGs:

Game systems are discrete tool-kits meant to be deeply curated, to taste, mixed/matched in a modular fashion by x (typically the GM, but sometimes the group).

This zeitgeist seems to be so deeply embedded in the D&D cultural fabric that people just take it for granted that "this is the way, the one truth."

Game systems that are focused or somewhat resistant to hacking become anathema.

There is an alternative:

Game systems are a synthesis of rules, procedures, and principles, the collective of which is holistically bound to an ethos/premise of play.

Your question becomes less/more relevant/fundamentally different with respect to each starting position.

At its core, these two ideas are the yin and yang of the "sum of its parts" concept.

I can see that. As I mentioned earlier (I think) I'm new here, so I probably wouldn't have been able to assemble anything like this from your posts, anywhere near as coherently-put.

I have to say, though, that I don't see this as a strict dichotomy. One might curate or hack a set of rules because of a specific ethos or premise. Or one might run something off-the-shelf, without ... I guess I want to say introspection, or maybe contemplation, about the premises of the game. Doesn't mean what you've described aren't the ends of a spectrum, or that it isn't useful to elucidate them--it is! Thank you!

One could also describe the DIY approach more-inherent in pre-3E D&D as something like an ethos, if not necessarily a premise (I think) and while the ethos of the players--especially the Very Online Players--does seem to have moved to playing-by-RAW, I think the 5E game itself supports hacking and modifying and as much DIY as the DM has time for. There are also games that seem to me to have some very different ideas about how TRPGs work, that still encourage a lot of DIY/hacking.

 

[innerdude]

@innerdude

So I'm curious- what exactly are you looking for with your post?

Suggestions for TTRPGs that would allow you to play a more character-driven game?

Suggestions for how to play your current games in a more character-driven fashion?

Permission to have more GM FORCE (is that like G Force ..... )?

Or something else?

Very good questions. [Edit] Most of the above, in a sense (other than adding more GM force, which I really have no interest in). [/Edit]

I'm fairly aware of systems out there that shift the focus from "procedural" resolution to "scene-based" resolution (Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Fate, PbtA/BitD, etc.). And I've actually tried Fate Accelerated and Dungeon World, and personally enjoyed what they were doing . . . . but my group was less enthusiastic.

I own Burning Wheel Gold, and in a certain way think that it's probably the closest expression of what I would be trying to get at toward true character-driven/chracter arc-based play . . . but I also know there's almost no chance I'd ever be able to convince the group to try it. One in particular (the GURPS-loving powergamer) would be a hard "no."

I was definitely looking for perspectives and insights into what drives character-arc play, what kinds of expectations people have when they're looking for character-arc-driven play, whether the presence/absence of rules that promote character-arc-driven play is a help or hindrance, etc.

This observation from @Ovinomancer was particularly striking for me, as I've heard this before in writing workshops for speculative fiction:

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.

The goal for me is to find more tools, techniques, and opportunities to both generate and sustain character-arc-driven play instilled with the kinds of things @Ovinomancer alludes to.

 

[Umbran]

2. The reason I'm not sure I agree with your first construction is two-fold; while I think that there was a big DIY component in D&D, I also think that, especially from 3e on there has been an increasing RAW emphasis in D&D. So I don't think that is fully accurate.

I think, over time, there's been a growth in the number of systems available, and an improvement in the design of systems, in general, that helps to support the increased emphasis as RAW/RAE, and a bit of a decline in retooling systems.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

I think that's part of it.

I also think that there's a decline in the "DIY" or "punk" aesthetic to the game. It's less of a purely creative and participatory hobby, in some ways, and more something to be consumed.

The two are probably interrelated; increasing professionalism on the production side tends to lead to less production on the consumer's (hobbyist's) side.

I wonder if some portion of it isn't the aging of what seems as though it at least has to be a large chunk of the market for TRPGs. It's harder to be DIY if you don't have the time, and it's easier to pay for professionalism if you have the money. I'm not sure the people getting into the hobby now have anything like role models for the DIY stuff that won't feel old and grognardy to them.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

Not going to be able to get to all the responses just yet, but just wanted to clarify one thing:

The distinction I'm drawing can also be summed up as:

"To hack...or not to hack...that is the question!"

So any hacking (at all) falls into the first and no hacking (at all) falls into the second.

You could certainly break down the first into a continuum of hacking, and then ponder "at what point does hacking game x lead to ethos/premise revision?" But that isn't what I'm setting out to do here (and I'm not sure its particularly apposite with respect to this thread). It would probably need a new thread to discuss the nuance of that question.